Backlash in rich nations against globalisation

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Financial Times

A popular backlash against globalisation and the leaders of the world’s largest companies is sweeping all rich countries, an FT/Harris poll shows.

Large majorities of people in the US and in Europe want higher taxation for the rich and even pay caps for corporate executives to counter what they believe are unjustified rewards and the negative effects of globalisation.

Viewing globalisation as an overwhelmingly negative force, citizens of rich countries are looking to governments to cushion the blows they perceive have come from the liberalisation of their economies to trade with emerging countries.

Those polled in Britain, France, the US and Spain were about three times more likely to say globalisation was having a negative rather than a positive effect on their countries. The majority was smaller in Germany, with its large export base.

Corporate leaders fared little better, with 5 per cent or fewer of those polled in the US and all large European economies (except Italy) saying they had a great deal of admiration for those who run large companies. In these countries, between a third and a half said they had no admiration at all for corporate bosses.


Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2a735dd0-3873-11dc-bca9-0000779fd2ac.html

[Vincardog]

1. Hey Corporate Parasite CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. What's that, little bug?

My Bangladeshi hearing aid ain't working.

[PoconoPragmatist]

50. No. They Won't Hear Us. Their Hearts Are Black. n/t

[PDJane]

2. There are blows to the average person in the West

from Globalization.

However, the rest of the world pays much, much more. They pay in poverty, starvation, foreign-set charges for domestic resources (for instance, prices for hydro power in South America were set by the price of oil in the rest of the world-kid you not), and prices for things they grow that are set by cartels that keep the price of things like coffee below the cost of production.

It's all about greed, and it's past time it stopped; for one thing, the world cannot afford the lifestyle of the West, particularly that of the US.

[pampango]

90. "the world cannot afford the lifestyle of the West, particularly that of the US."

I think you are right. It raises difficult questions, though.

Does this mean that most of the world's people must remain poor, while the West seeks to maintain, or improve, its standard of living? Or, if the whole world can't live a current Western lifestyle, should we envision living a more modest lifestyle, so that there is room for more prosperity in the Third World without overtaxing the capacity of the Earth? That would imply a greater degree of equality of dignity and opportunity throughout the world, but also a decline in our standard of living.

[rodeodance]

3. politicians who feed from these cooperations are not likely to listen (startling

statement!!)

[1932]

4. What's amazing is that this is despite MSM coverage that agressively hides truth about neoliberalism

and globalization.

[Tiberius]

5. Indeed.

People see the concentration of massive amounts of corrupting wealth in the hands of enormous multi-national corporations. They see this in their own lives, despite the giant media conglomerates controlling the MSM.

Even workers in India and China will be disheartened when companies, tempted by lower wages in other countries, outsource their jobs to even cheaper labor countries.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Even the mauch vaunted "help to people in poor countries" is a crock

The "free" trade apologists always talk about Third World leaders who want lower tariffs for their products.

Except that "their" products are actually the products of multinational corporations that have been outsourced to sweatshops.

It would be much better for rich countries and poor countries alike if there were regional trade alliances among countries of similar economic statuses. I could see, for example, an alliance among Mexico and the Central American nations that excluded the U.S. Each country could begin by specializing in a few products that were actually used by the local people (NOT down jackets for the U.S. market), and they could trade among themselves. If multinational corporations wanted in, they would have to a) reinvest a high percentage of their earnings in the local economy, b) train local people for managerial and technical positions, and c) transfer their technology to a company headquartered in the host country.

This is how the East Asian "tigers" prospered. No country has ever gone from poverty to affluence by following the dictates of the World Bank and WTO. The much-cited examples of India and China are actually examples of highly uneven development: all those millionaires in Shanghai and those software developers in Bangalore are at the tiny peak of a pyramid whose base is millions of peasants who live in huts and don't have electricity, clean drinking water, adequate food, or schools. In China, they've lost the social safety net they once had, and the peasants in India have never had one.

Exceptions to the localism rule would be made for situations in which a country's geography determines what crops it can grow. For example, most varieties of apples can't be grown in the tropics, and coffee can't be grown out of the tropics. Otherwise, instead of making Third World countries concentrate on producing cash crops for industrialized countries, let them concentrate on producing as much food as they can for themselves and helping local family farmers prosperous.

[AX10]

35. I have always believed in regional trading blocks between.....

similar economies. Once those economies are strengthened, then they can compete with other similar economies around the globe. There is no way an American worker can compete with slave wages in China.

[dipsydoodle]

26. "giant media conglomerates controlling the MSM"

but not the Financial Times which in this instance is UK media. . Usual ref. to the FT is "what's pink and hard in the morning" - the FT crossword puzzle. I assume yours is printed on pink paper too otherwise that one liner will be a bit lost.

[lefador]

18. The control of perception can do so much to mask reality...

... it doesn't matter how much Fox et al tell you how great things are, at some point you look at the fact that you bank account is in the red and how shitty your life is after having to work 3 jobs, be overly productive, take yet another pay cut... just so your job doesn't get outsourced to some shit hole far away.

[FredStembottom]

40. Correction: you do all that and the job eventually gets sent to the

shit-hole anyways.

True that.

[PoconoPragmatist]

53. Hmmmm

I been looking there for two years now.

That's why I'm going to school to learn medical transcription and then start my own business. corporate America doesn't deserve me. I'm too good for them.

They had their chance. They decided it would be more fun to discriminate against me...watch me starve, and cause my descent into depression so bad I had to move back home to Mom at age 34, and get on meds before I even had a chance of getting my life back on track.

There's a reason i'm called PoconoPragmatist. I been there, done that, seen it...and I'm not afraid to call it as I see it.

As Molly Ivins once said...it isn't insulting a pig to call it a pig. and no matter how much lipstick you put on it...it's still a pig.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. That's precisely what I was thinking.

The public collectively is a sleeping giant, but it is getting restless in its sleep. Soon it will awaken and smash its tormentors.

[Born Free]

36. just as the rich have united to promote their life styles,

the working class of the world need to unite to protect the rights and lifestyles of the working class, they need to put aside their minor differences in race,color,spiritual beliefs etc. and working together because only through working together can they gain the political strength to make positive changes for all.

[Jackpine Radical]

38. Maybe we should come up with some good slogans, like

Workers of the World, Unite!

or

Arise--You have nothing to lose but your chains!

or

Free beer for all the workers when the Revolution comes!


Gee, maybe this would really catch on.

[PoconoPragmatist]

55. I Like That!!

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your chains!

May I add that to my signature line, and give you credit?

Please send me that in a private message, so that I'll remember who said it, so I can properly credit. Thanks.

[pork medley]

87. "Arise, you have nothing to lose but your chains!" - Marx/Engels

[lovuian]

6. there are more of us than CEO's and WHY do they MAKE

OBSCENE money its GREED

[defendandprotect]

7. Actually, recently I've seen two or three wealthy people discuss this -- surprisingly on TV!!!

Spontaneous, of course -- nothing something they expected to be broadcasting . . .

Many wealthy people do have consciences -- they understand the need to pay higher taxes --

the need for a progressive tax rate.

[barb162]

8. What's been taking so long.

It's ridiculous. The rich/poor divide is growing daily.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. The rich and powerful don't like it.

Meanwhile, the "poor" and very, very powerful are sleeping.

[barb162]

24. The poor are bamboozled still that something will come along.

The American Dream that becomes less and less attainable.

[JDPriestly]

44. It's the books and ads on getting rich quick.

People actually believe that anybody can get rich quick if only they invest in whatever is the rage of the moment. In the '90s, it was the stock market. People actually quit their days jobs or cut their hours to day trade -- to their great financial loss or at least embarrassment when the overblown market crashed.

Since Bush took office, people have blindly "invested" in real estate. They paid and in some places are paying far more for residential properties than was or is reasonable considering the current wage and salary structure.

When people think they too can join the ranks of the rich, they tend to be willing to perpetuate what they are told are policies that will allow them to enjoy more of their wealth. It is all an illusion. A few people luck out, but most barely keep up with inflation. The promise is sold as the "American dream," but I understand the American dream to have a much more spiritual aspect. I view it as the society that makes sure that every American has a chance and can contribute to and enjoy a reasonably good material life for all without a lot of coercion. I support a capitalistic system that is tempered by respect for all citizens and contempt for excessive greed -- a society in which capitalism is accepted, but reined in to a reasonable degree by a democratic political system.

The reality of globalization thus far is that it is not tempered or reined in by respect for all or by democratic political systems. The book, China, Inc., presents a case study on what has happened in that country. I recommend it.

[PoconoPragmatist]

56. Wow. Just Wow.

And, judging from your handle, I venture to guess you are a UU.

I agree with every word you said! Say on, brother! Maybe one day, people will finally listen.

[JDPriestly]

74. Absolutely UU since around 1962

Proud to be Unitarian Universalist. Welcome to DU. You are still fairly new.

[PoconoPragmatist]

76. Yes. I Am.

And, of course, as you may have guessed...the name JDPriestly gave away to me your UU affiliation. Joseph Priestly was also the discoverer of oxygen.

And there is one of the districts of the UUA named for Joseph Priestly (covering most of Eastern Pennsylvania) and that was how I knew. Of course....by this I am quite sure I have given away MY affiliation with UU. Been one since 1995.

[JDPriestly]

88. Joseph Priestly was admired by many of our founding fathers.

And I believe he was a friend to Benjamin Franklin and known personally to many others. He was a major figure and an inspiration for the men who founded our nation. There is no question, like those men, he was a genius. (I chose the name not because I think I am like Priestly but because I want to honor him and remember him.)

[PoconoPragmatist]

92. Yes.

And I'd gathered that much...that your name was an honor and a tribute to Dr. Priestly.

[barb162]

61. Right on

Check this one out too

Why Asia Will Eat Our Lunch
THREE BILLION NEW CAPITALISTS
The Great Shift of Wealth
and Power to the East

By Clyde Prestowitz
Basic Books; 321pp; $26.95
The Good A clear, unbiased, and scary look at the threat that China and India pose to the U.S. economy.
The Bad It may be a tad pessimistic, given the author's tendency to assume current trends will continue.
The Bottom Line A persuasive argument that Washington's disdain for industrial policy is shortsighted.




Clyde Prestowitz says he had a revelation in 2003 when his oldest son, a software developer living on Lake Tahoe in California, asked him to co-invest in a snow-removal company. Why, wondered Prestowitz, would his high-tech offspring go into a business "as mundane as snow removal?" Explained the son: "Dad, they can't move the snow to India."

It's an example of the angst spreading among America's technology professionals as they watch India snare big chunks of the U.S. services sector while China runs off with America's manufacturing patrimony. His son's fears, Prestowitz asserts in Three Billion New Capitalists: The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East, are all too rational.
snip
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938029_mz005.htm

[barb162]

64. "a capitalistic system that is tempered by respect for all citizens "

Music to my ears. The problem is now there are too many politicians (1) who are bought by the corporations and (2) who have no understanding at all of what is really happening economically to this country.

[PoconoPragmatist]

77. Yep

of COURSE they have no understanding of what is really happening economically to this country. After all, IT ISN'T HAPPENING TO THEM!!

[reprobate]

86. The big problem the sleeping poor pose for the very rich is that eventually they will wake.

And when they do all hell usually breaks lose.

For example: Russia 1917, France 1789, US 1776, etc.

When it happens it usually means a very messy end for the very rich. Funny how, when you chop off their heads, their blood is really red, not blue.

[barb162]

9. "Urban Britain is heading for Victorian levels of inequality"

Urban Britain is heading for Victorian levels of inequality

The chasm between rich and poor seen in London today resembles the Manchester that Engels described in the 1840s

Tristram Hunt
Wednesday July 18, 2007
The Guardian


Today's super-rich are endowing a new generation of cities as divisive and ostentatious as themselves. In New York, Shanghai and London, the cosmopolitan plutocracy outdo each other in displays of ritual vulgarity from the car showroom to the restaurant table. But beneath the helipads, there lurks a growing cityscape of poverty and exploitation.

Yesterday's Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on social segregation in Britain has highlighted the crisis, talking of poverty "clustering" and wealthy flight to the outskirts. With the personal wealth of the richest 1% now controlling 24% of the national share, it seems we are heading towards Victorian levels of inequality. So it is worth recalling how the most astute critic of urban geography regarded the effects of such extremities of wealth and poverty.

Dividing his time between his Eccles mill, the warehouses of Princess Street and the underworld of 1840s Lancashire, Friedrich Engels was horrified by Manchester's social chasm. Industrial capitalism had divided one city into two warring nations of rich and poor. And this class conflict was embedded in the fabric of the streets. In his 1845 masterpiece, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels chronicled how the seemingly chaotic Manchester was, in fact, a carefully planned expression of middle-class power. He began in Deansgate, which, like today, was home to high-end shops and showy warehouses. Surrounding it were the "unmixed working people's quarters", and beyond them the suburbs of the rich, "the breezy heights of Cheetham Hill".

snip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2128707,00.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. I fully believe the part about inequality

There's a lot of obvious sparkling affluence in the UK, such as was not seen when I visited 40 years ago. It looks like an entirely different country.

However, there's a definite underclass, and that also was not as obvious 40 years ago. Parts of London as seen from the train look downright scary, almost in the way the South Bronx looked scary in the 1970s.

My impression of London 40 years ago was that the overall standard of living was lower than in the U.S. at the time, but aside from the traditional aristocrats, massive and glaring inequality didn't hit you over the head. There were enough jobs to go around, and the country had no deindustrialized.

Now it looks as if there's a lot of "paper entrepreneurial" money floating around, creating incredible affluence in some areas and making things rough for everyone else.

Deindustrialization is a huge problem for First World economies. We can't all be "knowledge workers." Some people prefer to work outdoors or with their hands and don't have the interest or the inclination or the mental traits needed to sit in front of a computer punching in numbers all day. A deindustrialized society tells such people that their only hope is to become a convenience store clerk.

Even The Economist, one of the biggest cheerleaders for globalization, admits that one of the negative consequences is the displacement of working class men. (The service jobs that working class women usually take are not as easily outsourced.)

[barb162]

21. The Guardian had an article today how this is happening

in the US too. It's been happening longer here. It's sickening. I want to see the candidates talk about this but they really aren't doing it very much. BTW, I agree with everything you're saying. Those service jobs will go soon too because the rich will leave this country and the poor won't be able to afford any services. I think western economies will be destroyed by this. How can a person go on vacation or eat out when they're going bankrupt. Well, that's the end of hotels and restaurant jobs.

[loudsue]

28. John Edwards is making this topic his whole campaign.

He gets it. And I admire him for it.

:kick:

[PoconoPragmatist]

57. Amen!! Keep The Word Going!!

Edwards/Moore '08!!

[Mojambo]

10. Good news, for once. n/t

[Demeter]

12. I Was Listening to a Radio Ad for Some Kind of School

They were boasting of teaching people "the skills to compete in the newly Globalized world".

And all I could think of was that they were way behind the times.

Globalization has peaked, and its flaws have become gaping holes through which it will disappear. Either the implosion of the global economy through the "keeping up with the Joneses" inflationary spiral and subsequent crash, or the raising of trade barriers to protect national economies from predatory trade practices, or both, will mean an end to globalization in the next 10 years, if not sooner. It will be too late for a lot of people, unfortunately.

And Chavez is leading the way. He's got half of South America off the road to ruin, and now he's working with African nations. Viva Chavez!

[barb162]

15. I'd have to disagree with you that globalization has peaked

It's still going quite strong and growing. There's still people in the US and the West not making third world wages. And until we're all pretty much unemployed in the West, the globalizing will keep going. When people start deciding they are taking back the law making in their countries and making their reps responsible to the workers and voters, vs . the corporations, globalizing will wane.

[conspirator]

29. Viva Chavez! Latin America will be the next super power after china n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Is ours the only advanced nation where to run for office one must beg the rich (corps) for $ to run?

Because that's the biggest part of globalization right there. As long as politicians need to feed off corporations in order to run and stay in office, corporations will be the rulers of our country.

[barb162]

22. bingo!

[donkeyotay]

84. Demockracy. No successful candidate for office is going to do diddly

for the people until candidates don't have to have the financial support of corporations and AIPAC. They put a little glamor and spin on it - calling it freedom - and export it to the rest of the world so everyone can live under this great system.

[xchrom]

19. we have to demand the end of sweeping multination trade agreements.

we have to demand that the state department not be allowed to use trade as a bargaining chip -- i.e. MFN.

nations have to be more than what ever their currency is.

and first world nations need to work much harder to trade with each other more -- and third world nations need to get out from under our corporate sweatshops -- and provide goods and services to each other.

anyway -- glad to hear that at least people will express SOME dissatisfaction in polls about globalization.

[Conscious Confucius]

20. Easing poverty would reduce terrorism and war

Oftentimes terrorists have no other economic avenue, as their jobs and income have been eliminated by foreign companies and so on. If we actually let these people work, then imagine the effect on global relations.

Or we should follow a Galbraithian example and invest in poor countries (not just poor country's dictators) and even the poor in America. Poverty does nothing for the economy, it only makes those at the top that much more wealthy.

[JDPriestly]

46. The people who allegedly planned and carried out 9/11

were not extremely poor. Bin Laden is, to the contrary, purported to be rich. It is a myth that the poor commit the terrorist acts. It just isn't necessarily true. Some of the people who commit such acts are poor, but the correlation between poverty and the commission of terrorist acts is not consistent enough to suggest cause and effect.

Terrorist acts are performed by people who hate, religious or political fanatics, people who believe they are "doing the right thing," however wrong the act may be from the point of view of reasonable people. I suspect a lot of terrorists are seeking approval from some leader or master whom they choose to perceive as a higher authority whom they almost worship. They are brainwashed by promises of rewards in heaven, or a victory by their side. Terrorists, I suspect, are loyal rebels, people who want so much to believe in some cause or please some person that they convince themselves that violence will somehow further that person or idea. In fact, terrorists are just mean bullies who cannot or do not allow themselves to see their victims as people who will feel pain and suffer.

Right now, a lot of the world's terrorists are in fact Muslim. That is just a fact. Terrorists also belong to other movements including fascism and various nationalist groups, but the terrorism of those other groups aren't getting the headlines in the past quarter of a century. If other groups are committing a significant number of terrorist acts, we aren't hearing about them.

No matter who is in charge in the U.S. or any other country, terrorism will remain a big challenge. Protecting people in societies with complex infrastructures isn't easy. The differences of opinion are about the best strategy to prevent terrorist acts, not what groups are committing them. They really occur, and since at least the '80s and before they have been perpetrated to a great extent by the groups I identified above. Personally, I don't think any American government would participate in planning such any attacks on American soil. They might fail to prevent them for various reasons and might be in some indirect way responsible, but wouldn't actually take an active role. I think that is just nonsense. It is utterly irresponsible in my view to suggest that any American would do such a thing unless you have really strong evidence to support your accusation. Bush is capable of some pretty stupid and bad things, and I support impeaching him, but he is not fool enough to plan a terrorist attack on our soil. It really would push his ratings even lower, not raise them up.

I think the Chertoff announcement was based on the sense that if he says something and nothing happens, he can take the credit, and if something bad does happen, he can say, "I told you so."

[Conscious Confucius]

63. I don't fully agree

Those behind 9/11, despite what we are told, didn't attack the US because they hate freedom, but rather they hate our decadent and intrusive society. This thought comes from the fact that the US is a bully in global politics and economics. Had we left Middle Eastern countries alone, then I suspect none of this would have happened. Had we not supported coups and assassinations of foreign powers, terrorists wouldn't have the huge agenda against our tactics. Many of the young men who joined the Iraqi insurgency do so either because we destroyed their family or because the terrorist groups offer them some sort of security. Importantly, though, we should define terrorism. Is a major world power's attack upon a miniscule nation not terrorism? What separates terrorism from revolutionaris and so on? I would say that the leaders of terrorist groups are as you describe, like Bin Laden, but those who follow are of a differenrt breed.

[JDPriestly]

75. I don't have a definition of terrorism.

No one does. It is apparently something in the nature of a quasi-military violent act against civilian targets intended to force political concessions.

[AntiFascist]

78. Bin Ladin was directed (and paid) to attack the U.S....

so that the House of Saud would not get attacked. Now we are fighting their wars for them! Amazing what so much wealth can buy: the allegiance of our Administration, the silence of our investigative organizations, and the use of our military.

[PoconoPragmatist]

59. You forgot something....

"it only makes those at the top that much more wealthy."

And those on the bottom more and more desperate. Most crime and terrorism is bred out of desperation. It's the only avenue left for people who have nothing left to lose. go on, big corporate parasites...keep backing people into a corner, and sooner or later you'll find out what happens.

[Conscious Confucius]

70. The same applies to all oppressed.

The oppressed don't act until they discover that they are the ones with the numbers, with the true power and a solid reason to fight. I hope the American masses figure this out someday.

[rockymountaindem]

23. I'm skeptical

Nobody seems to be doing anything about it, like buying goods produced in their native countries.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Sometimes U.S. goods are impossible to find

Just try to find electronics goods made in the U.S.

However, I'm lucky in that I have a food co-op in my neighborhood, so I'm able to buy local, organic, humane, and fair trade food. (I notice, by the way, that the co-op charges less for these items than our local chain supermarkets do.)

[rockymountaindem]

27. I know, but I don't mean just you and me

I just don't hear people making a demand for domestic goods. I never hear people say "I know Wal-Mart (or any other place you can think of) is cheaper but I don't want to buy foreign/sweatshop/forced abortion goods". As long as it remains an individually based notion, not a massive campaign, I think we'll continue to lap up cheap foreign imports.

Also, nobody is complaining that China undervalues its currency to make its imports artificially competative abroad. All of these "call Congress right fucking now (tm)" threads never bring up bread-and-butter issues like that. So, even here, there seems to be little entheusiasm for opposing one of the main gears of the machine eating up American jobs and competativeness: China's currency manipulation.

[NYC]

31. Is there a law against currency manipulation?

It's certainly an unfair tactic, but is it illegal? Just wondering. I have no idea.

[rockymountaindem]

37. It's supposedly against WTO rules, of which China is a part

Others will say that every country does it, which is true in part, as other countries manipulate factors like the money supply and interest rate which have an impact on the value of their currencies. However, this is largely done with an eye to domestic stability and internal economic factors, and furthermore is definately *not* to the level that China does it.

[NYC]

42. Thanks.

Useful information. :hi:

[rockymountaindem]

45. No problem!

:hi:

[NYC]

30. You're not the first person who has said that.

I pay more for New York State food at the green market here.

I think more people would buy local food if it wasn't more expensive than the food-of-unidentified-origin in the supermarket.

[barb162]

60. A woman wrote a book about not buying Asian goods for a year

I heard her on the radio last week. She said it was next to impossible. She ended up buying Italian shoes for her kid at $$$ because she couldn't find AMerican made shoes and refused to buy Chinesse made shoes.

[NYC]

66. I read about the book.

I try hard to buy American products. Second choice is Canadian products. After that, France, Italy, other countries that pay a living wage.

In some cases, it is next to impossible. I can't avoid everything Chinese, but I try.

Since I am trying to avoid any food imported from China or other countries with low or no standards, I am now buying single ingredient foods.

If you buy processed foods, you have no idea where all those ingredients came from, or where they were processed.

I don't think I was quite so aware of the low standards for food imports until the deaths by poisoning of cats and dogs. To me, that is unforgivable.

[barb162]

67. Country of origin doesn't have to be on food labels

I think there is some talk in Congress of making it a requirement to state origin of food products. There is so much news already of bad stuff, food included, coming out of Asia. I won't buy fish anymore because I don't know where it's from. Unless it says "Alaskan " or something like that on it, I won' buy anymore.

[barb162]

32. The Great Wealth Transfer

The Great Wealth Transfer
It's the biggest untold economic story of our time: more of the nation's bounty held in fewer and fewer hands. And Bush's tax cuts are only making the problem worse

PAUL KRUGMAN Posted Nov 30, 2006 1:59 PM


Why doesn't Bush get credit for the strong economy?" That question has been asked over and over again in recent months by political pundits. After all, they point out, the gross domestic product is up; unemployment, at least according to official figures, is low by historical standards; and stocks have recovered much of the ground they lost in the early years of the decade, with the Dow surpassing 12,000 for the first time. Yet the public remains deeply unhappy with the state of the economy. In a recent poll, only a minority of Americans rated the economy as "excellent" or "good," while most consider it no better than "fair" or "poor."
Are people just ungrateful? Is the administration failing to get its message out? Are the news media, as conservatives darkly suggest, deliberately failing to report the good news?

None of the above. The reason most Americans think the economy is fair to poor is simple: For most Americans, it really is fair to poor. Wages have failed to keep up with rising prices. Even in 2005, a year in which the economy grew quite fast, the income of most non-elderly families lagged behind inflation. The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

snip
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer

[treestar]

39. It is hard to believe that, though

Look at all the McMansions - they don't even build small houses any more. Look at all the SUVs, electronics, etc. The average American person has so much stuff, it's hard to believe they are suffering.

If you look around, most people appear to be middle class. Even if the poor are growing in numbers, it doesn't affect this big middle class directly.

And they've got time to be on computers and watching American Idol, etc. It's easy for them to answer poll questions saying things are horrible, but they're not doing anything to indicate they really believe it.

[NYC]

43. Are those people living on credit?

Sometimes I wonder. I look around. I see many people who seem to be doing quite well, living quite well.

Are they really doing so well? Or are they very deeply in debt? Can't tell by looking. I truly wonder which it is.

[TheFarseer]

49. most of them ARE living on credit

haven't you seen how bad our savings rate is? The average American has over $8,000 in credit card debt and I don't have a penny in credit debt so someone else is bringing up that average!

[barb162]

54. Wow, you answered that for me... see my post right below

I knew it was around 10,000 bucks. I carry no balances also so others are are bringing that average up.

[NYC]

65. To me, that means that people who appear to be

living better than you are not actually living better than you.

On the surface they may have more, but they are at risk of losing it. You, without debt, are likely secure in what you have.

By my standards, you are living better than they are. The people in debt merely give the appearance of living better.

Looks are deceiving. I wonder how many people who appear to be living well actually are living well.

[barb162]

52. I remember my realtor telling me that almost all houses are

bought with minimum down payments. I think a hell of a lot is bought on credit these days. The numbers are staggering as to the average credit balances people carry.

[treestar]

91. Could be. And if so they are getting their example straight from the top.

The nation itself is living on credit.

[Nevernose]

94. Please define "credit."

Do I have a mortgage? Yes, but comparatively small, due to an inheritance, and roughly comparable to what rent would be, and certainly not a McMansion.

Do I have credit card debt? None. On the rare occasions I use a credit card, I scrimp on something else to pay it off promptly.

My car? Used, and paid for outright.

Do I have unpaid medical bills and a student loan? Hell yes. Sometimes painfully so.

Do I buy too much shit? Probably. But I'm still not buying rims for my car or chains for my neckor new furniture or remodeling the house; my idea of "splurging" is not buying generic food.

Do I buy as much as most people I know? No.

The COLA in my town last year? 300%.
My raise? 1.65%

I worked my way through school, and it took me a while, but I graduated, and am on my way to getting that master's degree, which gives me a raise but also costs a heck of a lot of money.

I'm not asking for much. "A hard day's work for a hard day's pay" is ultimately all I expect.

And God knows I'm better off than I ever have been before; I'm not stealing diapers and food anymore, or living in the back of my truck, for instance. Why don't I deserve cable TV or that yearly weekend at Disneyland? I've done everything I was supposed to, and still can't seem to save a penny or get ahead in any way.

You seem to be arguing for "personal responsibility" -- and that's a fair argument. I know a lot of folks who aren't thinking ahead and living a lifestyle beyond their means. But perhaps if the wealth were more evenly distributed, and that Madison Avenue could make a profit without selling us shit that we don't need, that wouldn't be the case.

[Solon]

47. Look at WHERE they are building the McMansions...

Its usually on former farmland, and in addition, the land and houses are MUCH cheaper than smaller houses or apartments in cities. Cities are becoming too expensive for many people to live in, and some of the middle class are literally going up to their eyeballs in debt to even get this amount of luxury, in houses, that, while large, will fall apart if a wolf blew on it.

[barb162]

48. The middle class is shrinking away.

And I think a lot of the "stuff" we see is being bought on credit and two job households are in many cases barely keeping their heads above water.

[Speaker]

83. Excellent article.

Thanks for posting that.

One thing Krugman didn't mention, and something a lot of people have apparently forgotten, is that the Bush administration changed the way we calculate unemplyment. Remember all the haggling over the "household survey" method over the "business survey" methods then? Bush managed to get it switched to what he wanted. For some reason I have a sneaking suspicion the Bush did not change this to be more accurate. I think he changed it to cover the massive unemployment he was going to create.

I would like to see a recalculation of the current number using the old method. Then we could do an apples to apples comparison with the numbers under Clinton.

I'd bet that would be an eye opener.

[Doctor_J]

33. What backlash in the US?

Is this some kind of cruel joke? We still have a right-wing Congress, right-wing white house, right-wing court system, and right-wing media. There are o demonstrations, no general strike, no tax revolt, and no sign of any populist movement making any electoral gains. Where is the backlash?

[ooglymoogly]

41. they are having a backlash in the pols....

and how dangerous to the corporations is that?

[barb162]

51. I think the Congress turned Democrat a few months ago.

The White House is next. The court system, sorry I can't do anything about that either until Jan 2009.

There is a backlash; it's simmering right now. Once people stop blaming it on themselves and start blaming the system and the politicians, you'll start seeing politicians responding. You don't have to have people screaming in the streets for there to be a backlash.

[Doctor_J]

68. Yes, the Congress turned our way a few months ago, and

right now their approval rating is the same as the most unpopular Resident in history. What sort of backlash do you see happening? Actually, you do have to have people screaming in the streets, and it seems like this country is a lonnnnnnnnnnng way from providing any.

[melody]

73. Congress approval rating is low for a specific reason

Democrats expected more and we're angry at them -- the GOP hate them anyway. The President doesn't have that excuse.

[barb162]

85. People have to start holding politicians responsible.

There are too many people I have voted for who then go to Congress and the next thing I know they are passing anti-consumer, anti-labor, pro-corporation, etc., crap. Which is pretty funny because when they were running for office they were singing another tune, like how they were pro-labor, pro-consumer protection, etc. The worst ones are those who say one thing to the voters in the morning and another thing to the corporations when they have their $10,000 per plate fundraisers in the evening.
I think there's going to be true populist politicians arising in the most hard hit areas of unemployment and underemployment in the country.

[TheFarseer]

58. you're right

there's nothing but a little bitching on message boards and letters to the editor. Our corporately sponsored politicians certainly aren't doing anything about this and frankly, we aren't making them. Although I seem to remember some stuff going down in Seattle at a WTO meeting a while back, but they figured out they can just move the meeting to some third world quasi-hellhole and no more protesters.

[barb162]

69. I remember that Seattle protesting.

They were right to protest. That agreement should be rescinded, like a lot of others.

When the corporations are paying just about all politicians off, it's hard to get populists in office who are really for the people and not the corporations.

[melody]

72. There aren't??

Where do you live?

I'm in California. We have plenty of backlash.

As for the election process, you're joking, right? We have no choice in that.

[PoconoPragmatist]

62. A Note Of Appreciation From The Rich

http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

Let's be honest: you'll never win the lottery.

On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it -- you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!

As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.

Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us -- and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.

More....click the link.

[kurth]

71. Economic globalists are bloodsucking traitors

[eridani]

79. Rich countries? What about poor countries?

They've been trying to fight back against corporate globalization for decades, and account for most of the people who have been actually killed in this fight.

[entanglement]

80. The US working class must overcome its jingoism and unite with workers worldwide

Even if pure self-interest and not some higher principle is taken as the motivator. People are still peddling nationalistic pabulums which have failed time and time again and invariably lead to conflicts and war. The root of the idea is very simple: The capitalists are organized and act globally. Ergo, the working class has to mobilize as one entity globally to defend its interests.

If you want to know why the ruling classes win, this thread is the answer: they have kept us divided on the basis of race, nationality and ethnicity.

[PoconoPragmatist]

93. Don't Forget

They also keep us divided by gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc.

The first rule of war...divide and conquer.

We must not let them continue to divide us along artifical lines that don't mean shit. We are all in the same boat...and our boat has a great big hole in it, put there by the wealthy.

ALL of us need to work together to bail out our boat and patch the hole. And, preferably, put a fucking hole in theirs!

[The2ndWheel]

81. How would that solve a damn thing?

The solution to globalization is to do exactly what makes globalization work?

We don't get to have everything. If we want global communication, we're going to get globalization. If we want easy travel, we're going to get globalization.

The only way to stop globalization would be not want everything. Good luck.

Globally integrated centralization has been the general trend in human history for thousands of years. Everything we do seems to accelerate it.

Also, the only reason people might view globalization as something "negative", is because they're people. People don't come first. The system comes first. As long as that is the case, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what citizens think. It's not about us.

[4dsc]

82. the rise of resource nationalism

its happening with oil and the world may never be the same.. Oil producing countries are claiming "THEIR" oil is worth more to them in the ground than for all the greenback they get in return..

[Megahurtz]

89. It's Encouraging to Know That

other people in the World are waking up to the truth about Corporate Greed!
:thumbsdown: Down with Globalization!!!:argh: