NYT's Eduardo Porter Fears Inequality Will Lead to 'Hereditary Plutocracy,' Plugs Occupy Wall Street
In his latest "Economic Scene" column for Wednesday's New York Times, "Inequality Undermines Democracy," Eduardo Porter seemed puzzled by why Americans aren't into class warfare.
Porter, a former economics reporter for the Times, fretted America was turning into a "hereditary plutocracy" and put in another plug for the lefties of Occupy Wall Street.
Americans have never been too worried about the income gap. The gap between the rich and the rest has been much wider in the United States than in other developed nations for decades. Still, polls show we are much less concerned about it than people in those other nations are.
Policy makers haven’t cared much either. The United States does less than other rich countries to transfer income from the affluent to the less fortunate. Even as the income gap has grown enormously over the last 30 years, government has done little to curb the trend.
Our tolerance for a widening income gap may be ebbing, however. Since Occupy Wall Street and kindred movements highlighted the issue, the chasm between the rich and ordinary workers has become a crucial talking point in the Democratic Party’s arsenal. In a speech in Osawatomie, Kan., last December, President Obama underscored how “the rungs of the ladder of opportunity had grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk."
....
Americans have been less willing to take from the rich and give to the poor in part because of a belief that each of us has a decent shot at prosperity. In 1952, 87 percent of Americans thought there was plenty of opportunity for progress; only 8 percent disagreed. As income inequality has grown, though, many have changed their minds.
....
And a growing income gap has bred a gap in political clout that could entrench inequality for a very long time. One study found that public spending on education was lower in countries like Britain and the United States where the rich participate more in the political process than the poor, and higher in countries like Sweden and Denmark, where levels of political participation are approximately similar across the income scale. If the very rich can use the political system to slow or stop the ascent of the rest, the United States could become a hereditary plutocracy under the trappings of liberal democracy.
One doesn’t have to believe in equality to be concerned about these trends. Once inequality becomes very acute, it breeds resentment and political instability, eroding the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It can produce political polarization and gridlock, splitting the political system between haves and have-nots, making it more difficult for governments to address imbalances and respond to brewing crises. That too can undermine economic growth, let alone democracy.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"One doesn’t have to believe
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:25am.
"One doesn’t have to believe in equality to be concerned about these trends."
-- Eduardo Porter.
??????
This begs the question...
If you DON'T believe in equality, why would you be concerned by these trends at all?
Staggering illogic!
But then, what would you expect from a flaming socialist!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
"Therein," as Shakespeare says, "lies the rub."
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:32am.
Mr. Porter, how much of your income are you willing to, or should you be made to, give up in order to meet this standard of "equality" you espouse?
You see, this is the question that "equality" advocates are never willing to answer.
Because they never think that "they" will have to give up anything; just those "rich" people.
EXACTLY the question
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 11:37am.
I imagine that the answer is NOT A DIME because the equality he espouses is only for us "little people"
⇒ I get it
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:39am.
Like, you know, Caroline, you know, Kennedy, you know, entitled to, you know, her uncle's Senate seat, you know, because it's like, you know, something that's been in the family, you know, for years.
Like that?
You mean, like, the "Ted Kennedy" seat??
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:44am.
Or, maybe, like THIS?
The Kennedys: What's the Gaelic Word For Plutocracy?
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:47am.
Tru dat, I get it
"transfer income from the affluent to the less fortunate"
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:39am.
That is the dumbest statement I have ever heard in The Land of the Free.
All men are CREATED equal. After that brains, common sense, work ethic, education and drive take over.
People are like all other animals. If your momma was stupid, if your daddy was stupid, chances are you will be stupid too! Transferring my income to your sorry ass ain't going to make you any less stupid. In fact, I would argue that you will just be stupid enough to actually think that you are smarter.
My father dropped out of school after the eighth grade because he had to get a job to help support his family. He drove a mule team. It never stopped him from becoming very successful in life, and he never stopped telling me that if I wanted anything, I would have to work for it. I would argue that the experience made him more successful because he knew damned well that there wasn't going to be any "transfer" of income from someone who was earning it to him unless he earned it.
The "middle class" is disappearing because the liberals/commies in this country are training people to sit on their asses and be happy with what the government will allow them to have, instead of wanting to go out and earn as much as you can.
You like being poor? Keep sitting on your sorry ass and take that portion of my wealth that politicians will send to you after they skim off the majority of it for themselves. Not only are they lazy, but they cause you to be lazy. Only difference is they have private jets, big limo's, caviar, etc. while you're out protesting on THEIR behalf.
Ignorance is a temporary condition, but stupid is forever.
GMTA
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:46am.
transfer income from the affluent to the less fortunate
See my question to Mr. Porter, above.
I ask it all the time, MB.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 11:32am.
I never seem to get an answer.
Unfortunately, I have a sister who is so far left of "liberal" that she is a communist. Every time she starts one of her rants, I ask her what she is giving or is willing to give? Yada, yada, yada, is all I get.
When she is whining about the homeless, I point out that she has three or four unused bedrooms in her lovely home, so let's go get a few and bring them to her place. Sputter, sputter, check, sputter.
When she wants to pay reparations to the Indian tribes and the blacks for all the injustice we heaped on them, I point out to her that she should pick a tribe, or family and give them everything she has if that will make her feel better. Ahhh ..... ughhhhh ..... ahhhhhhhhhhh ... not what I MEANT. (She even talks like the RBFSOB lately!)
The only difference between a liberal and a hypocritter, is ... I'm sure there's something. Just can't think of it.
Indeed, MB
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:39am.
"socialism is for the people, not the socialists" as I have heard many times from various satellite radio hosts.
Literal Insanity
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:42am.
How can a country that elects as its president an unreconstructed Marxist, who has a rabidly activist cabal of sycophants surrounding him, all of whom work themselves to death to install freedom limiting rules on society, be a G.D. f-ing "Plutocracy?" Get this moronic f-wad into a secure facility and give him lots and lots of Thorazine. NOW!
Democrats embraced OWS only to find out they were a big problem.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:49am.
Democrats just loved the idea of having OWS protesting everywhere, until things started getting out of hand as the ultra-left wing of their political party started making OWS a platform for nothing but violence, crime, vandalism, greed and the ultimate level of "Gimme!".
Let's see the Democrats explain away the vandal who dumped the urine and feces in the ATM room at the bank and was caught on tape. Perhaps the Democrats can also explain away the over 7,000 arrests and the death threats issued against police officers and their families. Or perhaps they have an explanation for the arson, rape and other violent crimes that OWS perpetrated.
OWS was never, ever about equality or anything like it. It was about a bunch of untreated psychotics running around on the streets causing mayhem and demanding that everyone else pay for their lives. The glaring hypocrisy, stupidity and gullibility of the Democrats to think OWS would help them certainly tells us a lot about how low they have sunk.
<throws BS flag>
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 10:55am.
So, inequality makes it more difficult for government to address inequality? (He calls it "imbalances")
Wow, that's profound.
This is what passes for intellectual dicussion on the left.
Well, he has a bit of a point....sort of...
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 12:00pm.
Except that it is the democrats who tend to set up dynasties and "plutocracies" and also tend to think that incumbents should be re-elected no matter what.
But the issue is that because political contributions to a candidate are associated with free speech, it has become ubiquitous that the campaign that spends the most money wins the election. (not always true, but the liberals think it is).
If political contributions were disassociated from "speech" then we could get back to a more fair system where the constituents matter and actually get a say in who represents them.
My solution, while not impacting a Presidential election as much, would have HUGE consequenses for Governor, Senate and especially House races. It is based on a proposal that I heard from Alan Keyes in his 2000 Presidential campaign. Simply, that the only entity that is allowed to contribute to a campaign is an entity that can legally cast a vote in that election. This would eliminate contributions to a campaing from unions, corporations, organizations of any kind, and political parties of any kind.
But the real issue is that there is actually less inequality today than there has been in history in the US. There are more "rich" than ever and the "poor" are not as far behind as they used to be. It is the perfect example, long term, of the addage "a rising tide lifts all boats".
In order for an economy to actually run well and smoothly there WILL be inequalities. People have different abilities and apptitudes. Not everyone can be the CEO of a major international manufacturing corporation, someone has to be running the production machines and someone has to be working in the caffeteria serving luch and diner to the other workers. But, that doesn't mean that people are stuck in their positions. People are able to rise to the level of their ability and competence if they wish to. People are also able to sit back and earn a living that gives them free time for other activities if they wish.
Income re-distribution is a socialist idea that has NOTHING to do with democracy. We in the United States do not live in a democracy and were never intended to. We are set up as a Representational Republic because that gives the most opportunity to individuals to acheive "success" howver they define it. A democracy in it's pure form, actually stifles individual acheivement and breeds mediocrity and conformity, because 51% of the population can exert absolute tyranical control over the 49% minority.
A typical democratic/socialist idea that has been accepted and is causing MAJOR problems now is the idea of "too big to fail" and that the status quo must be supported and protected at any cost. The way that "plutocratic" business and industry is regulated by the free market is through the long Seasonal Business Cycle that periodically has recessions and deep economic slow-downs. This tends to clean out the greedy poorly run businesses that have become over-extended. This makes way for smaller, better run busineses and start-ups to acquire needed equipment and facilities cheaper than they would otherwise as they buy from bankruptcies. This process has been prevented from running it's course as of yet and so we are still saddled with bloated, mismanaged and ill prepared major corporations who are still trying to recapture the 1950s and 1960s. meanwhile the small innovative companies looking for the chance to grow are being prevented from their big opportunity.
In conclusion, it is the inequalities and the imballances that drive an economy and on a large aggregated scale are the energy and the sustenance to the system. An economy that doesn't have these qualities is called stagnate and will eventually fall into the chaos of entropy until another economy replaces it.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
What a shrub.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 2:55pm.
You! Yea, you! If you believe that the gap between you and the rich is unfair, then do something about it.
Work hard, long hours. Make good, sound decisions. Find your place in the economy. Then get rich yourself.
Problem solved.
Oh, and good luck getting around your 'Bama's hefty load of regulations. All designed to squash success.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Sorry Mr. Porter
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 11:21pm.
This great country was NOT founded as a democracy, it was founded as a Representative Republic. Democracy, just like socialism has never worked. We are are a Republic, not a democracy (or supposed to be.) The Republic is why we became the greatest country in history, democracy is why we are going down. Bring back the Republic!