Slate: Why Income Inequality Isn’t Going Anywhere

[portlander23]

Why Income Inequality Isn’t Going Anywhere

Why does the public policy response to nearly five decades of rising economic inequality remain so tepid, even as large majorities of Americans consider inequality excessive, and even under a two-term Democratic president? Our study, published Tursday in the journal Science, co-authored with colleagues Pamela Jakiela and Shachar Kariv, proposes an answer: Regardless of party, the elite donors whose money dominates politics, and the elite officeholders whose decisions set policy, don’t value economic equality. When the American government abjures egalitarian policies, it is implementing the bipartisan preferences of the American elite.

Elites’ preferences matter. The American elite overwhelmingly dominates both campaign finance and political lobbying, and American policymakers themselves come overwhelmingly from elite circles—the powerbroker Yale Law alumni mentioned above represent just the tip of a vast iceberg.

Our results thus shine a revealing light on American politics and policy. They suggest that the policy response to rising economic inequality lags so far behind the preferences of ordinary Americans for the simple reason that the elites who make policy—regardless of political party—just don’t care much about equality.

Democracy gives the mass of citizens a path for protest when the gap between ordinary views and a closed rank of elite opinion grows too great. The populist insurgencies that increasingly dominate the contests to select both the Republican and Democratic candidates in the upcoming presidential election show the protest path in action. Elites—in both parties—remain baffled by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders’ appeal; and they prayerfully insist that both campaigns will soon fade away. Our study suggests a different interpretation, however. These bipartisan disruptions of elite political control are no flash in the pan, or flings born of summer silliness. They are early skirmishes in a coming class war.

I think this is perhaps the best statement of why Super PAC money is so very corrosive regardless of the candidate.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Because Women in the 1% have learned to cope with Income Equality .

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, portlander.

[Garrett78]

3. Empathy Gap: "Rich People Just Care Less"

It's this sort of systemic stuff that I wish produced more in-depth analysis and discussion instead of the constant drivel about specific candidates (how many threads do we need that essentially amount to nothing more than "My candidate is going to win and yours isn't."?). This Slate article raises a very important point and brings much to mind (and this post contains many links as a result), but first I want to take issue with one portion.

The authors wrote, "The trade-off between efficiency and equality speaks to the tolerance that policymakers have for redistributive programs (like taxing the rich and productive to support the poor) that might lead to lower GDP but divide our country’s income up more equally."

The insinuation is that rich people are productive and that poor people are not, which is a ridiculous blanket statement (even if there was a lot of truth to that insinuation, it says nothing about the opportunity gap). First of all, consider what David Korten has written about phantom wealth vs. real wealth, which is something to keep in mind when it comes to determining what constitutes "productivity." And David Graeber, author of the highly recommended Debt: The First 5000 Years, points out in a must-read article that so many jobs we accept as part of our way of life are absurdly unnecessary. "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs."

Secondly, a half dozen years ago the New Economics Foundation submitted a report that I suggest everyone read. It was titled "A Bit Rich." The report makes it clear that several relatively low-paying professions provide far more value than several relatively high-paying professions.

Thirdly, GDP is a terribly flawed metric--sadly, it's used by liberals (when convenient) as much as it's used by conservatives (when convenient). It's as accepted, as much a part of daily economic discourse, as the wetness of water. Here are 2 links on the subject:

1) GDP: A Flawed Measure of Progress

2) Jonathan Rowe on GDP, Productivity and Alternative Economic Indicators

All of which brings to mind an article on how neoliberalism, the dominant ideology of the last 35+ years, has impacted more than just our formal political institutions. "Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us." It's interesting to note, though, that this seemingly human nature problem isn't universal. Experimental games such as the one mentioned in the Slate article produce much different results in different cultures.

Back to the Slate article: there is plenty of evidence that Rich People Just Care Less. There is a severe empathy gap related to the points made above.

So, no, Sanders (who I've never for a second thought would be the nominee) likely wouldn't be able to impact the system (our problems, it's important to understand, are systemic and not to be cured by a particular manifestation of the Cult of Personality) any more than Clinton would. That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to support Sanders or to be bothered by Clinton and her strong ties to the likes of Beacon Global Strategies, Corrections Corporation of America, Monsanto, Burson-Marsteller, etc.

And I'll close with something I've written elsewhere. I don't think the Sanders campaign is truly about winning the nomination. His campaign is, in his own words, "about creating a grassroots political movement in this country." So that one day we might have a POTUS and a legislative branch that truly does represent the will of the people. And not a lesser evil with strong ties to seedy corporations and firms. Because, as we know from numerous surveys, when you set aside that election results are driven by perception and money (and the Cult of Personality) and that most don't really follow politics very closely (or know what socialism means or what neoliberalism is), large majorities - when asked directly how they feel about various issues - share the same political philosophy as Sanders whether they realize it or not.

Sanders said, "...no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country. They will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them. That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about electing Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country."

Lawrence Lessig, being interviewed by Bill Moyers, said, "I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about. And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore."

Robert Jensen wrote, "No matter who votes in elections, powerful unelected forces—the captains of industry and finance—set the parameters of political action. Voting matters, but it matters far less than most people believe, or want to believe. This raises the impolite question of whether democracy and capitalism are compatible. Is political equality possible amid widening economic inequality? Can power be distributed when wealth is concentrated? These questions remain unspeakable in mainstream political circles, even though the economic inequality continues to widen and the distorting effects of concentrated wealth are more evident than ever. The limited successes of the Occupy movement nudged this into view, but this impolite question must be central in our conversations, raised without sectarian rhetoric and with a clearer analysis of the foundational nature of the problem."

We've legalized bribery. Obama's 2nd biggest 'donor' in 2008 was Goldman Sachs, and a Goldman Sachs employee became Treasury Secretary. Surprise, surprise. And there's a revolving door between regulators and the regulated. The foxes are watching the hen house.

Even campaigns themselves have taken to marketing consumer products that have nothing to do with the candidate or issues. And several presidential campaigns have won Ad Age's Marketer of the Year Award (competing against Apple, Coca Cola, etc.). Think about that for a minute. When the Clinton campaign talks about altering the Hillary Clinton brand, that's not a joke--it's just modern day politics.

That's the reality we're up against and have to fight to change. So, no, Sanders isn't going to win. And the comparisons some make to Obama's comeback in 2007/2008 are not apt for a variety of reasons. Obama won states that Sanders simply can't win. Obama was young and charismatic. Obama presented an opportunity to finally have a person of color in the presidency. Obama gave the keynote address at the '04 convention and was an up and coming rock star. Lastly, Obama wasn't "hostile to moneyed interests within the Democratic Party." A CNN poll recently showed that 25% of registered voters haven't heard of Sanders--I doubt that was the case for Obama in 2007. And, make no mistake, Sanders has his flaws.

However, Sanders doesn't have to win for his campaign to help spark a grassroots campaign that could lead to a Democratic Party that isn't ruled by moneyed interests. One can hope. But that empathy gap has to be addressed in some way; somehow.

[portlander23]

5. I dunno that they care less

I think there's something more fundamental than caring less going on here, I think what's being said is they have a different value system. Caring less implies that they have the same value system, according to this study, that efficiency is the greater good because it supposedly leads to better outcomes for everyone.

[Garrett78]

7. Follow the link.

I suggest reading the article, "Rich People Just Care Less," that I linked to. That research-based reality isn't mutually exclusive with what you and the article are saying about a different value system.

It's important, too, to bear in mind the impact of cognitive dissonance and justification. People will do whatever it takes to justify their actions and avoid feeling bad about themselves, such as maintaining a belief in trickle down economics in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And then, of course, there are plain ol' sociopaths out there, as well.

[portlander23]

9. I did follow the link

I did follow the link. I agree that there are sociopaths, but I think few people see their own actions as immoral. I think supply side economics is insane, but I'll bet you that there are a lot of efficiency true believers. People who really do believe that freeing capital across national boundaries for investment leads to better outcomes. That free trade leads to better outcomes by finding efficiencies in labor markets. People who believe that collecting lower rates on investment income leads to better outcomes for all.

They're wrong, but I think it's deeper than justifying actions. I think they see the world through a different lens.

[Garrett78]

11. Which, again, isn't mutually exclusive with the research...

that demonstrates rich people care less. And it's not just that rich people care less. We all have a tendency to pay less heed to those who are seemingly lower on the social status ladder. That tendency, though, is more stark between wealthy and poor.

[portlander23]

12. Fair enough

I think we can agree that whatever the root cause, rich people are different. My primary concern is they're the ones driving policy more often than not.

[KoKo]

13. Re: what Robert Jensen wrote:

Perhaps the 2016 Election will be the Peak of Brand Exhaustion amongs the Voting/Non-Voting "Consumer."

We have "Brand Trump" (The Donald) vs "Brand Hillary" and we are creating "Brand Bernie" (Feel The Bern).

In which of these three will the Voting/Non-Voting Consumer find the Brand that they feel is most Authentic in Packaging Appeal, Consistency of Product and Reliablility. Have we reached the point in our over-saturated Marketing of Political Products that the jaded and wary Consumer passes by the Glitz, Pretty Promises, Bragadoccio, Double Talk and Micro-Management of a Campaigner and searches for substance?

If Bernie were a Brand being rated by "Consumer Reports" testing...I'd give him high marks compared to the two competing brands. It remains to be seen if we are at the tipping point yet, though. Although, I agree, that Sanders will make a difference whether he wins the nomination or starts the Revolution.


From your link:

Robert Jensen wrote, "No matter who votes in elections, powerful unelected forces—the captains of industry and finance—set the parameters of political action. Voting matters, but it matters far less than most people believe, or want to believe. This raises the impolite question of whether democracy and capitalism are compatible. Is political equality possible amid widening economic inequality? Can power be distributed when wealth is concentrated? These questions remain unspeakable in mainstream political circles, even though the economic inequality continues to widen and the distorting effects of concentrated wealth are more evident than ever. The limited successes of the Occupy movement nudged this into view, but this impolite question must be central in our conversations, raised without sectarian rhetoric and with a clearer analysis of the foundational nature of the problem."

We've legalized bribery. Obama's 2nd biggest 'donor' in 2008 was Goldman Sachs, and a Goldman Sachs employee became Treasury Secretary. Surprise, surprise. And there's a revolving door between regulators and the regulated. The foxes are watching the hen house.

Even campaigns themselves have taken to marketing consumer products that have nothing to do with the candidate or issues. And several presidential campaigns have won Ad Age's Marketer of the Year Award (competing against Apple, Coca Cola, etc.). Think about that for a minute. When the Clinton campaign talks about altering the Hillary Clinton brand, that's not a joke--it's just modern day politics.

[Garrett78]

15. Minor point of clarification.

The portion in quotes is from the article by Jensen. The whole article can be read here: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-03/our-democracy

The rest of what you've quoted, starting with "We've legalized bribery", is my own commentary.

Jensen, by the way, wrote the best and most thorough deconstruction of the concept known as patriotism that I've ever read. For those who are interested: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/CoEPatriotism.pdf

[ibegurpard]

4. when elites see the writing on the wall

And adapt then we get the New Deal. When they don't we get revolutions.

[Garrett78]

17. Yeah, the New Deal was really about keeping the wolves at bay.

As for revolutions, Chris Hedges drew an interesting distinction between revolution and rebellion in this talk.

Around the 34-minute mark, Hedges says revolution is about "establishing a new power structure." Rebellion is about "perpetual revolt and the permanent alienation from power." He goes on to say, "it is only in a state of rebellion that we can hold fast to moral imperatives that prevent a descent into tyranny."

[closeupready]

6. I'm inclined to agree that Sanders isn't going to be the nominee,

but I also believe if he is not the nominee, Trump is almost certain to become the next president, in part due to the arguments put forth here.

[Garrett78]

8. Trump also won't be nominated.

You can bank on that.

[closeupready]

14. Nor will Ronald Reagan.

Nor will a second place beauty pageant contender with an IQ matching her state's ambient temperature ever be selected as VP.

[Garrett78]

16. Reagan and Palin

Reagan was governor of the most populous state in the country. Palin was also a governor and represented a desperate ploy by the underdog, Team McCain. Reagan and Palin pretty much represented the status quo. Trump and Palin, though, are similar in that they're both caricatures. Neither Reagan nor Palin spoke openly about raising taxes on the wealthy or opposition to free trade, as Trump has.

Trump has the bigotry thing down, though I'm sure the party establishment thinks he's too overt with it. But the economic elites, or what Jensen calls the "captains of industry and finance", aren't going to tolerate a Trump nomination. He'll be brought down. If any of the non-politicians have a chance, Fiorina is a much more likely candidate, as she doesn't deviate from the script too much. But I still put heavy odds on the nominees from both parties being veteran politicians.

[Skwmom]

10. It's not just SuperPac Money. It's corrupt politicians that CASH in and become millionaires

by working against the interests of average Americans.