The U.S. is in a sorry situation, with high taxes, record-high energy costs, the federal deficit and national debt at all-time highs, and a trade deficit so high it’s frightening.
Our federal government has been subverted from the inside out and from the top down. It’s no longer there to serve the longterm best interests of the greatest number of citizens. Now, thanks to the neoconservative Republicans in charge, our government exists, first and foremost, to serve corporate and other big-money interests.
Our Army and Army National Guard have been overextended, misused and run down to a dangerous and extremely expensive crisis condition.
We’re stuck in a quagmire in Iraq that’s costing us $2 billion a week. We’ve squandered 2,580 of our soldiers’ lives there, with another 20,000 badly injured. Yet all we’re doing is presiding over a three-year-long fiasco that’s gone from bad to worse. There’s no end in sight, and all President Bush and congressional Republicans can say is “stay the course” that got us to this no-good place.
How no good is this place we’re in? Here’s a quick indication. Baghdad may be one of the most dangerous places on Earth, with 100 Iraqi civilians murdered daily, yet 100,000 Shiites just gathered there for a rally. Their purpose: urging Hezbollah to fire missiles at Tel Aviv.
Back home, meanwhile, we’ve got a federal government that defiantly rejects science in favor of ideological preconceived notions, favors for donors and faith-based nonsense. We’ve got federal spooks spying on U.S. citizens’ communications in violation of the Constitution and statutory law, and a brain-dead Senate “watchdog” whose idea of a remedy is to jigger the law to accommodate breaching the Constitution this way.
Not to be outdone, our worst-of-all presidents signs legislation while exercising an unconstitutional line-item veto over parts he doesn’t like — 800 times! And, thanks to his cronies in Congress, he’s getting away with it.
How can all this bad stuff and more be happening without people rioting in the streets, withholding tax payments and doing whatever else they can think of to protest nonviolently?
We found a strong clue in a column by Walter E. Williams, who is a professor of economics at George Mason University (emphasis ours):
Parents are paying an average tuition of $21,000, and at some colleges over $40,000, to have their children exposed to anti-Americanism and academic nonsense. According to a 2000 American Council of Trustees and Alumni study, “Losing America’s Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century,” not one of the top 50 colleges and universities today requires American history of its graduates.A survey conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut gave 81 percent of the seniors a D or F in their knowledge of American history. The students could not identify Valley Forge, or words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. A survey released by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that American adults could more readily identify Simpson cartoon characters than name freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.
God help us all. No wonder we’ve got Bush and Cheney in the White House, Bill Frist leading the Senate and Dennis Hastert running the House of Representatives. No wonder FEMA is worse than useless and the Department of Homeland Security is an incompetent, expensive joke in bad taste. No wonder we’ve been let down, crapped on and screwed over nonstop for years.
We don’t know where Williams falls on the political spectrum, whether he’s a Democrat, Republican, Green or what have you. We just know he got off a good one full of troubling truths we all had better start doing something about.
Please read the rest of it and weigh in here with your thoughts.
First of all, nice succinct wrap-up of the present state of affairs created by our heroes in DC.
As far as the Williams article, color me skeptical. I think Kevin Drum covered the UCONN survey awhile back, and he raised a good point: where’s the data for 50 year olds?
Universities rarely require basic American history courses, because it’s assumed (wrongly, of course) that the 10 years of (mostly) American history we get in jr. and sr. high school is sufficient.
Aside from that, I just don’t think he makes a good case about kids being indoctrinated with anti-American classes. Egyptian women barfing on themselves is kinda gross (but hey, I’d love to take that class), but it’s not exactly un-American.
So I guess I’d say this guy may have some good points, but he’s got a lot more leg work to do.
However, the basic point that tons and tons of Americans (confession: I sure don’t know nothin’ about Valley Forge) are woefully deficient in U.S. history is spot on. But the anti-American talk? Sounds to me like Dr. Williams is just trying to come to terms with modernity, and failing.
Hi Thrillhouse, and thanks for joining the fun here.
As the post indicates, I quoted Williams not because I’m worried universities are cranking out anti-American grads, but because they’re passing along people with huge gaps in knowledge about some important basic things. How can people make sensible decisions about politicians’ attitudes about things like freedom of speech and press if they don’t know squat about the First Amendment?
How will an arrogant clod of president be reigned in for violating the Constitution and statutory law all over the place, if people have no idea what the Constitution says and what the laws are?
I just see a real connection between lack of savvy in too many people and willingness to buy into the notions like “I just vote for the one who seems best.” And then, they support what that one who seemed best wants to do, even if it’s stupid, dangerous and wrong as wrong gets. Joe McCarthy seemed best to a bunch of voters. So did Nixon and so does Bush.
Democracy and survival depend on people knowing more than that and doing better than that, that’s all.
Colleges and universities do it because they’ve become obsessed with being run like a business and maximizing their profit with minimal outlay on the “product” (the former student with a degree). Perhaps I’ll beat RSF to the punch and suggest that it’s a good place for market forces to operate: parents should hold the post-secondary schools accountable.
But they don’t — they’re more interested in the prestige their student gets from a particular institution, at whatever cost. The’ve been planning for their child to go serve time at that institution in return for the presitgious diploma since preschool. In many cases like the Ivy Leagues, expectations just go along with privilege. Thus, Bushes go to Yale whether they want to or not, and graduate whether they should or not. It’s a long tradition embracing upper-class British twits.
I think there is a problem, sure, but I would put the burden on the primary and secondary education we still mostly require of every citizen, which I believe — along with Thomas Jefferson — is valuable and necessary for good citizenship.
But then, I’m a liberal who likes to see all citizens participate in American democrary. Universal literacy is not terribly popular with the Republican party (as currently constituted), which seems to prefer an ignorant populace, thinking it more susceptible to manipulation.
Jeff S. wrote, “Universal literacy is not terribly popular with the Republican party (as currently constituted), which seems to prefer an ignorant populace, thinking it more susceptible to manipulation.” I’ve always suspected the Democrats in this department. Dems have always gone for the captive audience: various racial groups, labor unions, beneficiaries of public money, convicted felons, etc. Their model has been one of a ruling elite delivering the goods to a compliant populace.
As far as a lack of American history in the diet of students, I would suggest that history education has become an ideological battleground and each side has become loathe to press the teaching of it. The Left sees American history as stressing the ascendency of Europe in America, so they downplay it. The Right sees history departments in Universities co-opted by left/liberals who want to retell the stories of old to press their agenda, so they downplay it.
Points taken, SWA. I’m still skeptical, though. I just don’t accept that today’s graduates are any more ignorant than those of yesterday. I do sense this is true, but I’m not committing until I see data on older folks. Whenever Jay Leno does one of those things where he goes out and asks folks on the street who the vice president is, the old people do just as poorly as the young (of course they edit to show only the dolts, so that ain’t exactly a scientific test). Just last night I had dinner with a 60-year-old man, Rutgers educated, captain of industry, and his grasp of the constitution is as bad as any of the kids today (at least, judging by his constant endorsement of everything Limbaugh and Oreilly say).
There’s always a tendency to say things were better in the old days, and a lot of times they were (like back in the days when laborers’ income grew at the same rate as corporate profits). But there’s plenty of other times where I think our nostalgia clouds our judgement, and that’s when I like to go to the numbers.
As far as the edumacation thing, I agree with Jeff S, that the mandatory public school years are where history is best taught. I’ve always felt that public school taught me basic skills and lots of knowledge, but it was college where I really learned how to think analytically.
RSF, my sense is that the “my political opponents want the general populace dumb and poor” charge is common on all sides. Each side feels that if people just had all the facts (“facts” being the most subjective of all words in politics), they would join that side.
RSF wrote:
What do you mean by “gone for the captive audience”?
Various racial groups (read African Americans) didn’t see Tom Dewey pushing for civil rights and for integrating the armed forces. They did see Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman pushing for those things. They didn’t see Republicans meeting with black clergy and college professors, and speaking at NAACP meetings. They did see Democrats doing those things. So, who do you suppose African Americans concluded they’d be better off supporting?
Labor found a home and voice in the Democratic Party. Those who spent millions to fend off or bust unions, in an effort to avoid paying tens or hundreds of thousands more a year to union shops, were as integrated with the GOP as they are today.
Beneficiaries of public money  the poorest of the poor, the disabled and veterans, mostly, sure enough knew what they could expect from Republicans: assurances that in the fullness of time all will be well. They had seen it and lived it in the Great Depression. They had gone to bed hungry, and worse, put their kids to bed hungry on those assurances, along with nearly everyone else.
As for convicted felons, you’re attempting to demagogue what is, as best I can tell, a pet project of the Congressional Black Caucus. While it may have won some sympathy at the margins, it’s not on other Democrats’ front burner and never has been.
No wonder you’re not a Democrat, RSF. You’ve evidently got a head infested with Limbaugh-grade misinformation and a neocon Republican’s calloused disregard for facts and common sense.
The people you mention joined and supported the Democratic Party because it supported them and their interests. The Republican Party didn’t compete for, or earn, their allegiance with deeds and loyalty.
Thrillhouse, as a general proposition I tend to think younger Americans are less well grounded in what used to be called social studies. I saw it in my kids, in their textbooks and what they weren’t being taught or required to do.
Anecdotally, I’ve noted evidence of it at times when talking with some young people. No lack of intelligence, but noticeable softness and gaps in knowledge, sometimes with more than a little misinformation thrown in.
You make some good points, though, so I’m going to reserve judgment. As to whether the fault lies in K-12 or college, I think history and American Government should be ongoing requirements.
So, this much I will hold to, and it goes right back to my post. Something’s drastically wrong with our electorate, with our society  knowledge, attitudes, expectations  when a George W. Bush manages to get re-elected in the face of so much glaring evidence of how utterly ill-suited he was to be president. The sorry state we’re in didn’t pop up overnight; everyone should’ve been able to to see it coming.
Bush’s re-election required millions and millions all over the country to ignore too much, including their own best interests. Keeping Republicans in control of Congress only ensured worse would come to worse  as it steadily has.
This is rightsaidfred, with a head infested with misinformation. I had some fears that was so. Maybe that is why I have trouble finding the “e” on my keyboard.
S.W., to claim the electorate is stupid because they elected George W. is just a gimmicky debating tactic. George W. is not that bad. The choice was between George W. and an undistinguished John Kerry. In hindsight, maybe Kerry should have been given more consideration, but at the time George W. was the better choice.
I mentioned “captive audience” Democrats, and you gave a fine portrayal of Democrats on issues that were salient in the past, but maybe not so much today (and in my opinion that is why the Dems are having trouble today). When planning political campaigns, Democrats look out and say, “let’s get the school teacher vote”, or “let’s get the illegal alien vote”, or “let’s get the disaffected urban intellectual vote”, in other words big voting blocks whose leadership can deliver a big percentage of that group at the polls. Republicans look out and say, “let’s get those who want more personal responsibility”, “let’s get those who want smaller government”, or “let’s get those who want lower taxes”, more an individual search than one identified by ethnicity, geography, or work status.
My main point was that identifying someone as a Democrat has no connotation of more knowledge or intellectual ability. In my opinion I would suggest the opposite. When I go to the polls in my precinct on election day, I see my Republican brethren come in on their own, individually, and they are people of accomplishment who can take care of their own affairs. The Democrat party activists on the other hand, bring in groups of people to vote, people who shuffle in with vacant stares and slack jaws, sometimes drooling, clutching a voting card they sometimes lose, and sometimes the activists practically go in the booth and complete the process for them.
Ah, to be a bitter ideologue.
RSF, your head is so infested! Do they sell an anti-misinformation shampoo? I could probably use a couple bottles myself.
SWA is quite right that it is the democratic party, and no other, that has championed the causes of the less powerful, just as you are right, RSF, that past acheivements don’t mean as much in our “what have you done for me lately” society. I think your characterization of democrats as only going after people based on issues is a useful critique, but it’s kind of old – we’ve been moving away from issues-based politics for years. It also applies equally to the parties.
Issues-based politics isn’t going away, it’s just getting more sophisticated – something dems have been very slow to learn from our clever conservative friends. You may have heard about all the bla bla blab-ing among libruls regarding how an issue is framed. Repubs have done a great job of framing issues in larger, nobler terms, but it’s just the same thing in a different package. I think the last few years of absolute conservative rule have shown that what was once claimed to be a philosophy (“more responsibility”; “small government”; “culture of life”) is nothing more than a smoke screen for issues-based politics; the issues are generally unappealing to Americans, such as making regular people pay rich people’s bills, thus the smoke screen.
The recent raft of button-pushing but ultimately pointless or hurtful legislation paraded out by the GOP is but a fresh example. Do you suggest that the votes on immigration “reform” were not grabs for anti-immigrant votes? What about flag burning? The bizarre “we’ll only allow a minimum wage increase if you let the 7500 richest estates get billions in tax cuts” thing?
What does the stem cell veto exemplify? Small government? No, this is government intrusion. Culture of life? No, the prezident has specifically decided that some “young humans” may continue to be slaughtered with federal money, but not others. And he specifically permitted private institutions to slaughter as many “young humans” as their hearts desire, right here on American soil.
You don’t fire up the base with lofty, vague talk. You fire them up by talking about the issues that will get them to the ballot box. The gop has just figured out how to do that better than we have.
As far as your observations at your polling place, RSF, you must live in a very interesting place. Where I live, in northern VA, you just can’t tell who’s going to vote for who. It may be a personal failing of mine. When I see a guy go to vote, I can’t tell if he is a person of accomplishment, or whether he’s going to vote for a dem or repub. It’s just some guy voting to me. I do see the groups of elderly, and they do shuffle and drool. Chances are, I’ll be doing that someday too, and I hope someone helps me get to the voting booth.
(Just FYI, shuffling and drooling are usually side effects of medication; their brains are as sharp as ever, or at least sharp enough to know who’s more likely to give the elderly short shrift on capitol hill.)
As far as activists helping seniors vote, I haven’t seen that in VA either, but that could be a state thing. Here, only a nonpartisan pollworker can help someone vote.
RSF, my point isn’t that the electorate is stupid, although I think millions of voters made a stupid choice in ’04 because their votes failed the common-sense test. I attribute part of this to many being distracted, disengaged or voting on the basis of such things as liking one candidate’s looks more than the other’s. But as indicated in the post, how can people vote to protect constitutionally guaranteed rights and safeguards if they’re ignorant about what the Constitution says? How can they vote their own best interests if they get most of their input about what their leaders are doing from eight-second sound bites and headline skimming?
Bush’s record was execrable by any objective measure. What’s more, before and after the election, surveys consistently showed most Americans, by a fairly wide margin, opposing Bush on issues that have real impact on their daily lives.
That might’ve been understandable had Kerry somehow been revealed as even less well suited to lead. But that wasn’t the case at all. Kerry lacked the ability to make magic speaking on the stump the way Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan could. But he wasn’t offensively bad at it. On top of that, his ideas, goals and policy positions were much more in line with what most Americans tell pollsters they favor.
The proof is in the pudding. It wasn’t that long after re-electing him that a substantial majority began giving Bush poll numbers indicating broad, deep and abiding dissatisfaction. All those people weren’t just in a snit over the war or Katrina, either. Voters have continued to pan Bush for a solid year now.
As for Republicans wanting all that personal responsiblity, smaller government and fiscal responsibility, again, just look at the record and tell me why then Republicans didn’t dump Bush and his neocon enablers in Congress. Because they did everyting but deliver on those things.
Whether Democrats have more knowledge or intellectual ability is debatable. What they do have, by a big, demonstratable margin, is greater respect for truth, facts, law and the Constitution. They’re not out to make their own reality.
One last thing, RSF. What do you call all these wedge-issue bids for firing up the base that Bush and the Republicans keep perpetrating? How are those any different or any better than Democrats putting things on their agenda to benefit teachers and workers?
I think Republicans are every bit as into issue politics, as you call it, as Democrats have ever been. As in: “Let’s get the angry white middle-aged male vote.” “Let’s get the gun enthusiasts’ vote.” “Let’s get the ‘pro-life’ vote.” “Let’s get the gay bashers’ vote.” “Let’s get the investor-class vote,” and so on.
Thrillhouse wrote:
Excellent point, excellently made.
The droolers in my voting district are not elderly. They are alcohol/crack/meth connoisseurs.
I have to cede the point that Repubs promised us smaller gov’t but didn’t do much to deliver on that promise.
I still maintain there is a qualitative difference in how the two major parties approach their issue groups. The Democrats offer more direct involvement of government, e.g. promise the poor the gov’t will give them more money. The Republicans offer a more indirect approach, e.g. promise business owners the gov’t will maintain a friendly business climate.
RSF wrote:
Evidence, examples, preferably from within the past 20-25 years? (Our Limbaugh-calibrated horsepucky meter hit the peg on that one.)
Exploding deficits, enormous debt, wars more costly and less effective than ever, unprecedented profits for big oil and big pharma — coincidentally those industries that spend the most on lobbying Congress — declining real income for most the population, stagnant economy, rising interest rates, tax give-aways for the wealthiest….
Thank goodness the Republicans didn’t promise significantly smaller government!
S.W. asked for examples of Democrat inspired gov’t redistribution in the last 25 years.
The biggest one that comes to mind is that the earned income tax credit took two big jumps during the Clinton administration.
Tom Harkin wrote a pretty generous farm bill back in the 90s.
I think it was Al Gore who had a push for more lax food stamp rules.
I don’t know where I heard this, but it seems Ted Kennedy crafted some more generous base line budgeting rules for domestic spending programs.
It’s telling, RSF, that when you went to answer my very simple, direct question, you morphed “promise the poor the gov’t will give them more money” into “Democrat inspired gov’t redistribution.”
I notice in your examples there’s more going on, both in intent and effects, than the government just giving people more money.
People benefiting from the EITC had more to spend. That boosted retail sales and tax revenues in their locales. There’s reason to believe EITC also serves as an incentive for the poor to get and stay off welfare, since it bolsters income from low-wage jobs. So EITC is also a subsidy for small and new businesses, and retailers generally.
A generous farm program is intended to keep food and fiber plentiful and affordable, and help take the edge off our soon-to-be $1 trillion trade deficit. These things benefit everyone. Farm programs also help keep more farmers from leaving the land, which is vitally important, economically, culturally and even for national security. Drastically cut the farm program, and you can expect to hear angry cries from rural banks, farm implement sales and service places, farm equipment and supply manufacturers, and the like.
And so on. You’d be hard put to find an example of Democrats saying let’s give people more money, or pushing legislation that just hands out money. In every case I can think of there’s a broader benefit involved.
Jeff S. wrote:
I can clearly recall a 15-year or so period when Republicans railed against the Department of Education, calling for it to be done away with. Didn’t happen.
They even had a secretary of education, under Reagan as I recall, who said he’d be OK with presiding over the dissolution of his own Cabinet-level department. Never quite came about.
Now, with Republicans controlling the whole federal government, you’d think they would finally get it done. But no, it’s not even mentioned any more.
You might say they were for getting rid of the Dept. of Education before they were against getting rid of it. But of course that would be flip-flopping, which they would have us believe is a phenomenon only seen in Democratic presidential candidates.
You’re too defensive, S.W. I’m not necessarily against these domestic spending programs. I think they highlight some of the differences in philosophy between Republicans and Democrats.
I’m not against the EITC. But, I think a better plan is to raise the productivity and wages of workers so they earn above the level where EITC kicks in.
(Our domestic farm programs are a joke. Most of the money goes to large operators who capitalize the money into land rent.)
You say there is a broader benefit involved in domestic programs. Maybe. I’ll look for it. There is also a broader benefit from reducing the inefficiencies and distortions of poor spending programs.
RSF, raising the productivity and wages of workers is a nice thought but woefully out of phase with the common reality.
It’s as if 30 or so years ago too many business owners, leaders and investors contracted a virus. The epidemic liberated inner Scrooges, leaving the infected convinced greed and selfishness are virtues. They also deemed loyalty a responsibility of employees but merely a platitude to be mentioned now and then by owners, managers and investors.
Likewise, patriotism is fine for company literature and executive pep talks. But if boosting the bottom line means offshoring production, setting up headquarters at a Caribbean mailbox center and tucking money away in secret offshore bank accounts, so be it.
How do workers cope? Do they go back to school to upgrade their skills or to change careers? If so, to what, exactly? I’ve seen people who’ve done that, only to see their new jobs, or hoped for jobs, go away.
You’re not going to increase wages or real income by increasing productivity much if any more. An infinite number of Chinese or other Third-World workers will always be available to do the work for much lower pay, no benefits and whatever working conditions their employers create.
You are too pessimistic, in my opinion. Modern business has delivered unprecedented production and wealth that is shared by all like no time in history. Even the money tucked away by tax cheats in offshore banks gets invested somewhere in the world economy.
You can always find some negative examples, but let’s keep our perspective.
What I find challenging is that more wealth does not equal more happiness. After reaching a surprisingly low income level, people do not report more happiness with higher incomes.
Hey, how did this get to 20 comments without anyone slinging around ugly insults? It’s almost like a, what do you call it, reasoned debate. I thought these were banned on the internets!
Agreed, RSF, modern business is more efficient, productive, and wealthy than at any other time in recent history. However, the income benefits business has reaped no longer trickles down to regular laborers. Wages have been essentially flat since the early 1970s. Before that point, business income and laborer income rose at around the same rate.
I agree with you as well that more money doesn’t mean more happiness. I think that most people desire economic security first and foremost. Even though people generally have more money than they used to, their feelings of economic security have been steadily eroded (very much so in the last few years, with NAFTA and CAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, etc., but this is a trend that’s been building since the 70s).
Thrillhouse provided this gem of insight and wisdom:
So true. Even some very-low-income people who manage to steer clear of bad-credit woes can acquire some of the trappings of affluence: car, clothes, cell phone, etc. And, more than a few of today’s young people stuck in low-wage, here-today, gone-tomorrow jobs seem to be doing well, thanks to parents who are providing various forms of supplemental support and backup using financial resources earned in a better economy of a few decades ago.
But this isn’t economic security by a long shot. If these people get laid off, get sick or injured, have a bad auto wreck, etc., they can wind up in a desperate situation before they know what hit them.
Even joining the military, where the prospect has long been ironclad job security, stable pay and damn good benefits, is no assurance of economic security any more. Just see my post, “AF enlistee ailing and screwed over, just like his country.”
Returning to the way things were from the 1940s to the 1970s is probably not possible. But the other extreme  basically allowing business and financial interests to carry on with complete disregard for people’s economic-security needs, and nearly doing as bad in the public-policy realm  which is what he have had for the past 30-plus years, must not be allowed to continue either.
Blogger’s note to all who’ve been good enough to comment:
This is what it’s all about. I get the first say, obviously, but having a good exchange with several people taking part is gratifying. While Thrillhouse’s “reasoned debate” may be a highfalutin’ way to put it, he’s right. It’s great to post and get a bunch of comments without having the whole thing break down into into sniping and name calling.
Thanks to you all  and don’t let this digression curtail your additional comments on the post or previous comments.
“people desire economic security first and foremost.â€Â
I don’t agree with this. Some people give up economic security for other things, like a life of excitement, or helping others.
I would suggest we have more economic security today than in the 1940′s-1970′s. The private sector is more robust, and public spending is at higher levels, both in absolute terms and in percentage of the economy.
S.W. muses that some parents are helping their kids “using financial resources earned in a better economy of a few decades ago.” Unless the parents are using savings or selling assests for an inflation adjusted price they bought them a few decades ago, those are todays dollars, a function of today’s economy.
S.W. is often critical of the market economy and “business selfishness”. While there are problems, the risk taking of a market economy has delivered more prosperity in today’s world than the more state planned economies.
I know you weren’t trying to pervert my meaning or anything, but I did say “most people desire . . .” There’s definitely a (small, in my opinion) number of folks who are ready to throw all caution to the wind, but I don’t think this mindset is all that common.
Don’t get me wrong; risk-taking is absolutely essential to the American character and to our economic model. I think sometimes we liberals don’t emphasize this enough. However, most folks (no hard data to back this up, but I’ll see if I can find anything – Kevin Drum talks about these economic safety issues pretty frequently) aren’t too fond of all-or-nothing risks. I think this modern mindset of shying away from high-risk living may have developed in the 1930s, when the laissez faire system failed so badly. FDR’s response was the social safety net which, while getting nipped and tucked here and there, has become a fundamental mover of our economy.
I know, some conservatives argue that FDR’s programs were the beginning of our decline (whatever that means), but I see the safety net, primarily social security, medicare, and bankruptcy protections for individuals and businesses, as an empowering system. Entrepeneurs are more willing to take risks, knowing that if they fail they will have assistance through bankruptcy laws, for example.
As far as blog navel gazing, I’ve found I’m much more comfortable making comments than I am at writing original posts. Seems I just ain’t got much to say, unless someone else says something first.
RSF wrote:
No way, RSF, no way.
Back then, millions who weren’t going into the military one way or another went from high school to work in factories, mines, mills, railroads, construction, utilities, etc., most of those being union shops.
If a new worker did his job well and behaved, he was in. Most then had relatively high job security compared to today, along with living-wage pay and good benefits.
I talked at length with a retired miner who followed exactly that path, working nearly 40 years. He said that two years out of high school he had a nearly new car and could afford to get married. Six years (as best I can recall) out of high school, he had a wife, two children and was able to make a down payment on a house. His wife did not work outside the home.
Precious few young men I’ve seen in today’s economy can come anywhere near that kind of thing. Statistics show the chance of staying in a decent job with the same company for four decades is just about restricted to offspring of the owner, provided it’s a private firm.
Also, RSF, it’s not a choice between a market economy and a centrally controlled, planned economy of the bad old Soviet kind.
We’ve been through this before, but maybe an analogy will finally put that kind of nonsense behind us.
Think of a highway system where vehicles lock onto a guiderail that controls their movement, speed, route, etc., as one extreme. Think of a demolition derby as the other extreme.
I don’t favor a guiderail system for our economy. Neither will I accept a demolition derby.
There is some element of choice in economic systems. Maybe choice is the wrong word, with images of a head of state rubbing their chin, muttering, “what should we be…Albania?…or Hong Kong?”. But the policies a country pursues charts a course.
When Castro lost his Soviet subsidy, he allowed some market reforms that saved his regime, tacit evidence that the market can deliver greater $$$ to an economy. I’ve heard lately that Castro is rolling back some of these reforms to get back to a more “pure” Socialism in his final years: kind of an example of one choosing ideology over economics.
As for economic security, now vs. the 40′s-70′s, almost every economic indicator is in my favor. Those with a high school education are not doing as well relative to the rest of the workforce as his counterpart in the 1940′s, but in absolute terms his standard of living is higher today than in 1940. When that worker of an earlier time lost the factory or mill job, he was more likely to fall into dire financial straits. Today there are more options. Your example could afford a car two years out of high school. Today a larger percentage of young people have a car at an earlier age than their counterparts in the past.
You cite job insecurity. Part of this is that today’s workers move on to higher paying jobs. There are more layoffs today, but there are also more hires. This added dynamic has let more profitable firms prosper, and more profitable firms can pay more in wages and/or make a greater addition to the economy.
Good point about Castro, RSF. I can’t say I know a whole lot about the Cuban economy (all I know about Cuba I learned in “Havana Bay,” by Martin Cruz Smith), but pretty much all those formerly communist countries have done a lot better w/a freer market than they did under Stalin’s 5-year plans. Let’s hope Cuba doesn’t have to put up with Castro much longer.
Balance is the name of the game, no? As in SWA’s analogy, neither extreme is particularly attractive to most folks. Markets and the economy should be free of needless gov’t intervention, but I do believe you need an essentially impartial “cop” to make sure everything’s on the up and up. That’s what I think the gov’t's role is, making sure everyone plays fair.
Of course, the hard part is trying to figure out exactly what the gov’t should do to ensure fairness. I would say, in general, right now we need more gov’t involvement, especially in the areas of personal information security (which I think is HIGHLY related to economic security) and the credit industry.