step aside good people, it's the "assholes on parade"*
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 09:04AM 
Uncle Sam and dying flowers • click
to embiggenAs sure as death, whenever one begins a discourse about politics, especially regarding economics, out come the free-market apologists praising the benefits of being poor in America. And, in yesterday's entry, Trevor stepped up to fill the bill:
I think the free-market debate should long ago have been put to bed (it creates the most prosperity for the most people, including those low on the income ladder). (my emphasis)
I am sure that those "low on the income ladder" would be surprised and pleased beyond measure to learn of their "prosperity" when:
• Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, are without health insurance - The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 9 million people since 2000.
•The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years - an estimated 13 million children are living in households that are forced to skip meals or eat less due to economic constraints.
•Some 38 million people in America are considered "food insecure" -- they have trouble finding the money to keep food on the table. (all statistics from US Census Bureau data).
Low income prosperity? Hey Trevor, look up oxymoron in the dictionary.
Of course, maybe Trevor is one of those who believe that those the government deem as poor aren't really poor at all because they have a color tv and/or a car. All of which ranks right up there with Reagan's notion that the trouble with America is that the poor are stealing all the money.
Free markets? Andre wrote:
Free market? Did someone say free market? In the USA? That's a good one.
1- Markets are controlled by oligarchs: they are no longer free.
2-American agriculture is still heavily subsidized.
3- And when the market go bankrupts who pays? The industry or the goverment? Who's going to bail out Fanny May and Freddie Mack? The industry or the government? Who bailed out the Saving and Loans Institutions when it was near bankrupted? The industry or the government?
How about the absurd free-market tenet that the market always "gets it right"?
Representatives of the Big 3 automotive companies are petitioning the government for $50Billion in low interest loans because they have been financially staggered by the results of the high price of gasoline which has caused the public to stop buying the high-profit, bloated, gas-guzzling behemoths they are been churning out for years. After all, they were only following tried and true free-market principles - meeting demand and raking in record profits.
The fact that they totally ignored research and development of products to meet the demand for an automotive future that everyone knew was coming - expensive and increasingly scarce gasoline - in order to pad their wallets and those of investors seeking maximum short-term returns (consequences? what consequences?) means that they got it exactly wrong. The fact that Ford & GM had below investment grade ratings long before high gs prices appeared, means that they have been getting it exactly wrong for quite awhile. It means that they were financially staggered by their own greed and greed-induced ineptitude, not by high gas prices.
And then there's W. who proclaimed that, since many Americans are having to choose between food and gas, choosing food and driving less, thus driving down the demand for gas (and thus the price), the market was "working". Human suffering, despair, and disruption is relegated to being a "market mechanism". This from a man who made the bulk of his personal wealth from massive government subsidies and intervention.
And, don't ever, ever, ever forget that it was an unregulated and unrestrained free-market "working" in the mortgage / investment industry that allowed the free-market criminal-class to rake in billions for themselves and leave the industry and our economy in a mess.
Unfortunately, I think Aaron's quote from yesterday's entry was on the money:
Carlin should have run for president while he was alive.
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope."
And oh yeh, lest I forget - Trevor, if you really believe that those "low on the income ladder" enjoy anything that even begins to approach prosperity, I am certain that you would be happy to trade places with them, right? Go live for a year in the their shoes and then come back and talk to us about prosperity.
* the title of a catchy song by Timbuk 3 - I particularly like the lyric, assholes get elected, 'cause assholes get to vote.
Reader Comments (20)
Does the market gets it right as to the high price of oil which is hurting the economy in general?
NYMEX. That's where oil is now traded. Finance types account for 70% of the trading volume on the NYMEX while real producers and buyers only account for 30%.
According to Micheal Masters of Masters Capital Management, stricter control of the oil market would bring down the price of a barrel of crude oil to about $65 to $70
With regard to the Carlin quote and yours above, Mark ("assholes get elected 'cause assholes get to vote"):
My favorite teacher of all time was a Political Science professor when I was an undergraduate at SUNY Brockport (about 1972?). The Vietnam War was still very hot and we were talking in class about why we kept electing people who seemed to be hell-bent on doing exactly the wrong things. After a while, the professor said, "There's one thing you have to remember about American politics. The masses are asses. It's always been that way and probably always will be".
I've always remembered that. And, of course, it's still true today. So I think I can say without any reservation at all -
We're DOOMED.......
Mark,
I note with humor that you don't address my correction of your statistics, that you simply pile on more numbers out of context.
as for oxymoron, I suggest you look at the entire world around you. Low income in America represents extravagant wealth elsewhere (thanks to a free-market system).
As a matter of fact, I have lived in poverty--broke and uninsured for years--and I have since moved elsewhere. My notions about what was best for America didn't change because I was suffering. Numbers about who sits where on the economic totem pole fail to account for the fact that people don't generally stay there. They move through the strata throughout their lives.
Who on earth says the market 'always gets it "right"'? Try building a little more substantial straw man next time.
Clearly, honest debate is of no interest to you. Back-slapping self-congratulation and ad hominem attack seem to appeal more.
There's certainly an "a**hole on parade" here, but it's not me.
I like your photography, but your public policy analysis is far too emotive and low wattage to be of interest.
When I commented yesterday, "Is that the best America can do?" I should have read Carlin first, it is the perfect answer.
"I note with humor that you don't address my correction of your statistics, that you simply pile on more numbers out of context."
From dictionary.com
sta·tis·tics /stəˈtɪstɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stuh-tis-tiks]
–noun
1. (used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.
The operative word in this definition is "numerical" Trevor.
What context would you require? 2+2=4 no matter where it is written.
Jimmi,
Read my comment about household (family) income versus individual income (from yesterday's post) before you make such a foolishly authoritative comment. Context is everything. Statistics misused only tell a lie that appears to have authority. It's a simple concept.
Trevor,
I read your qoute from yesterday
"The size of American households has been shrinking for decades now, hence the shrinkage of 'family' income. Average real income for individuals has risen radically in that time."
Where did you get that statistic?
Jimmi,
The info about Household size decline is available in many places, but here's a pretty good summary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14942047/
"Context is everything".
Well, Trevor at least got that right. Actually, he got a bunch of other stuff right, too, but it's one of those smoke and mirrors things, you know? I especially love the comment about how low income people in the U.S. would be extravagantly wealty elsewhere. Talk about spin.....
To me, it all boils down to some real numbers. Trvor is absolutely right when he says that per capita income has risen. But those numbers are usually given in percentages and therefore hard to get a "feel" for. Here are some actual income statistics (from the Congressional Budget Office).
In 1979, the average income of the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. was $325,000 (in 2005 dollars). In 2005, the top 1% were making $1.1 million.
In contrast, the middle 60% of wage earners were making $42,000 in 1979 and $51,000 in 2005 (a very modest increase). Worse, the poorest 20% were making $14,500 in 1979 and $15,500 in 2005 (almost no change).
So who's actually reaping the benefits of economic growth here? With regards to the distribution of wealth, things are only getting worse. Actual purchasing power is declining for the vast majority of Americans. I don't know how you can characterize it any other way unless, of course, you've got some kind of ideological axe to grind.
“Talk about spin.....”
I live on planet earth, where real systems are created by real men, some systems providing far better for their citizens than others. In this thread, and in our daily lives, our system is under attack. I am comparing ours to the rest of the world. Sorry that the lower standards of living for everyone else on the planet are of no interest to you. But I am comparing systems to systems. How is that spin?
As for your income breakdown, you miss the point entirely. Mark stated that the income of all but the top 10 percent of families “fell by 11 percent” in the years 1973 to 2005. Based on your numbers, and any twisting you care to do with them, the incomes of that group rose significantly during the stated time.
And how is a $9,000 increasing in real family income ‘very modest’?
One other thing that isn’t taken into account here is public assistance, which doesn’t get counted in the bottom numbers and can, with Welfare, Medicare and assisted housing add up to significant figures. Unless of course that money isn’t real and spendable in your eyes because it came from the tax payers.
This is another ideal example of how statistics, even used nearly correctly, can lie.
I’ve said my piece on this topic. People who want to hear, will. Those who don’t, won’t. Sadly, I could write 100,000 words refuting myriad other arguments, and the ostriches would still willingly and bitterly stay in the dark.
I know imperfection annoys the starry-eyed utopians among you, but I don’t see ‘Perfection on Earth’ as a political party anywhere
that last was in response to Paul Maxim.
With all due respect, Trevor, I don't like summaries.
The history professor "Gil Troy" was quoted so much as to make it almost an opinion piece. I'll find some time to research it a little further.
"People who want to hear, will. Those who don’t, won’t. Sadly, I could write 100,000 words refuting myriad other arguments, and the ostriches would still willingly and bitterly stay in the dark."
In response to your above statement, and I ask this with no animosity towards you, is it possible that you are the ostrich.
Most people, including myself, have a set of beliefs and tend to find and "hear" things that support those beliefs. I do try
to stay conscience of the fact that my interpretation of the sensory data that am receiving may be skewed by my "Belief System". Do you? This is a serious question, not just for my man Trevor, but to all who may read this.
Yesterday I posted a link to an article. Here it is again:
"http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html"
Don't let the title and length discourage you from reading it.
It gave me some insight to the way others literally "think".
I also recommend reading the responses to the article. They made me think about the way I literally "think".
Note: "Scare Qoutes are important when reading what I write."
Oh, we're talking about "systems". Forgive me, I thought we were talking about people. In fact, Trevor, you said,
"Numbers about who sits where on the economic totem pole fail to account for the fact that people don't generally stay there. They move through the strata throughout their lives".
Then, in response to the Congressional Budget Office data, you said,
"How is a $9,000 increase in family income very modest?"
Hmmm, let me see. A $9,000 increase (in 2005 dollars) over 26 years works out to about $346 per year. If we assume 2 weeks of vacation each year and a 40 hour work week, that "increase" is about 17 cents an hour over the entire period. Wow. That's pretty impressive, huh? Talk about "moving through the strata"! I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd have been real satisfied with that.
And based on U.S. census data, roughly 52% of all U.S. families made less than $52,500 in 2007. No wonder we're all doing so well (you know, out of debt, saving like crazy, sending our kids to good colleges, taking vacations, making sure our retirements our taken care of, etc.). Heck, we all have money to burn.
Oh, but wait, we're talking about economic "systems" here. And how bad the rest of the world is doing. So that should make us just giddy about $0.17 an hour increases in "real" earnings over nearly 3 decades. Next time I'm having trouble making my healthcare payment, I'll be sure to remember how "lucky" I am.
By the way, I know just a little about statistics. I have an MS in statistics and have been "practicing" for over 30 years. You're absolutely right that people abuse numbers (especially when using things like percentages). I've lived with that kind of nonsense for a long time. What troubles me more, though, is when people start with a "belief" and then search for the data that "proves" that belief, while discarding any data that doesn't.
my mom always said "figures lie and liars figure." Hungry kids and old people who can't afford heating oil are a national shame in a country with as much wealth as this country has, and it is a choice we all make, day after day.
Please explain to a hungry kid in rural or urban america that they are really well off beause their stomaches are not distended with malnutrition, like the kids in Africa.
I remeber asking my mother when I was about 10 why she supported welfare, and she answered, becuase I always think, "there but for the grace of god go I." Unless you have enough capital that you are living off a trust fund, that is true for everyone. We just don't like to think about it. Statistics are comforting until you are that 1 in Xthousand who [insert malady here].
We now return you to our regularly scheduled photography blog.
I especially love Trevor's comment about American poor being wealthy compared to people in, say, various African countries. I used to get a similar silly comment from my friends in Canada while I was working in Florida: "Oooooh, you're getting paid in American dollars!" This was a few years back when there was almost a 25% difference in value between Canadian and American dollars. My reply (obvious to anyone who stops to think for about a nanosecond - direct hint to Trevor): "Yeah, but I'm paying American prices."
America's poor are not, most definitely not, rich.
Mark, I'm not sure about over your side of the pond, but here in Aus we have a saying, "We always end up with the government we deserve".
"Carlin should have run for president while he was alive."
Here's what Carlin had to say. Look for it in the following video at 2:12:28. Quite interesting.
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=wogn6ad80i
Well, after jeopardizing the american economy, the pigs at the trough finally got what they wanted: a $700 billions bail out plan announced by G.W. Bush himself.
The taxpayer will foot the bill like always so that these guys can go on lining their pockets with cash while praising the american entrepreneurial spirit and free market economy!
Welfare bums, all!
in putting together some tunes for a road trip this weekend, I came across this John Prine song I've never heard before. Seems just as relevant as when he wrote it (which I'm guessing was the 70's?).
Well, I went to the bank this morning
And the cashier he said to me,
"If you join the Christmas club
We'll give you ten of them flags for free."
Well, I didn't mess around a bit
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck them stickers all over my car
And one on my wife's forehead.
chorus:
But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
They're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.