Rand Paul: America’s Poor Are Lucky to Have it so Good!
“The poor in our country are enormously better off than the rest of the world,” Paul said. “Doesn’t mean we can’t do better, but we have to acknowledge and be proud of our system of capitalism, be proud of our American way.”Here’s how he got to that conclusion:
One of the important lessons that came out of the Cold War — and this is an important description that I don’t think comes up enough — the Cold War was won by America because the engine of capitalism defeated the engine of socialism. The Soviets used to show a propaganda film — they wanted to show how horrible America was and how our poor were doing so poorly. They filmed a building in the poor section of New York with some broken windows and they said, ‘Oh this is how the poor in America lives.’ But it backfired on them because the Soviet citizens looked at that video closely and they saw flickering color television sets in all those windows.Like the nonsensical claim that 50 percent of Americans pay no taxes, this is a zombie lie that will never rest. It can’t, because people like Rand Paul aren’t really defending American “capitalism” — they’re defending the great economic inequality that results from capitalism when its not balanced by a real social safety net. It’s axiomatic that the poor have it better off in countries with less inequality and greater ‘transfer payments.’ But more to the point, greater inequality leads to more people living in poverty — and we lead the developed world.
That’s what their “populism” is supporting. Economies with a more equitable distribution of wealth produce fewer millionaires, yes, but many fewer poor folks. So, the Right simply argues that our poor folks have TVs! And dishwashers! They’re doing great!
Read the rest here
While Paul Rand is calling poor Americans, even those who live under bridges in cardboard boxes or in their cars in Walmart parking lots, lucky you can read from Robert Reich his views on why the poor get poorer and the rich get richer....
Wall Street's banditry was the proximate cause of the Great Recession, not its underlying cause. Even if the Street is better controlled in the future (and I have my doubts), the structural reason for the Great Recession still haunts America. That reason is America's surging inequality.Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928—with 23.5 percent of the total. Each of America's two biggest economic crashes occurred in the year immediately following these twin peaks—in 1929 and 2008. This is no mere coincidence. When most of the gains from economic growth go to a small sliver of Americans at the top, the rest don't have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing. America's median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped. Under these circumstances the only way the middle class can boost its purchasing power is to borrow, as it did with gusto. As housing prices rose, Americans turned their homes into ATMs. But such borrowing has its limits. When the debt bubble finally burst, vast numbers of people couldn't pay their bills, and banks couldn't collect.
China, Germany and Japan have surely contributed to the problem by failing to buy as much from us as we buy from them. But to believe that our continuing economic crisis stems mainly from the trade imbalance—we buy too much and save too little, while they do the reverse—is to miss the biggest imbalance of all. The problem isn't that typical Americans have spent beyond their means. It's that their means haven't kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.
A second parallel links 1929 with 2008: when earnings accumulate at the top, people at the top invest their wealth in whatever assets seem most likely to attract other big investors. This causes the prices of certain assets—commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate—to become wildly inflated. Such speculative bubbles eventually burst, leaving behind mountains of near-worthless collateral.
The crash of 2008 didn't turn into another Great Depression because the government learned the importance of flooding the market with cash, thereby temporarily rescuing some stranded consumers and most big bankers. But the financial rescue didn't change the economy's underlying structure. Median wages are continuing their downward slide, and those at the top continue to rake in the lion's share of income. That's why the middle class still doesn't have the purchasing power it needs to reboot the economy, and why the so-called recovery will be so tepid—maybe even leading to a double dip. It's also why America will be vulnerable to even larger speculative booms and deeper busts in the years to come.
This is for my friends who like to debate economics. If you want to read the whole article go here.
Enjoy!
