by Eric Marin
Quotable Henley, regarding the Gulf spill, which he calls America's Chernobyl:
There can’t be three foreigners not in the employ of Rupert Murdoch who, today, can read about the “American model of democratic capitalism” without sniggering. This is a country whose elites can cry real tears about the pensions of Britons while regarding the pensions of American autoworkers as the next thing to a crime. While there is a real principle at stake in the difference, it’s not one you’re supposed to voice: Concern for British pensions is a way to keep powerful and connected people unaccountable for their actions; Auto worker pensions can only cost such people money.
I'll add two pennies to that: currently, Americans are paying less in taxes than at any time since the Truman administration, and for the wealthiest Americans, the effective rate is scandalously low. Unsurprisingly, income disparaties have been growing at a rapid pace. And yet, our very serious economic thinkers are obsessed with Hooveristic austerity measures during a deep recession and unemployment crisis (with state budget cuts, many of which are statutorily mandated, essentially cancelling out the already too small federal stimulus), as well as ways to gut Social Security.
Just, you know, don't raise taxes to the already low rates that applied in the 1990s. That would be unthinkable. And whatever you do, don't create additional brackets for millionaires, multi-millionaires, billionaires and multi-billionaires. Better to cut vital services for people who depend on them, and let our infrastructure rot (but at least we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on defense!).
This country's worship of wealth and the wealthy, and the capture of our political system by those same elites, will be our undoing. And yet, unlike just about every other Western industrialized nation, our proletariat come out in droves to protest against efforts to bring the scales down from their enormous upward tilt.
This country's worship of wealth and the wealthy, and the capture of our political system by those same elites, will be our undoing.
It's just an example of the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.
Just, you know, don't raise taxes to the already low rates that applied in the 1990s. That would be unthinkable. And whatever you do, don't create additional brackets for millionaires, multi-millionaires, billionaires and multi-billionaires.
You will be taxing the most productive people in our society! If you tax success there will be less of it and we will all suffer! Demagogic class-warfare! Why do you want to make the baby Grover Norquist and Wall Street investment bankers cry? We're going Galt!
Posted by: Ugh | June 17, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Meanwhile, House GOPers are actually apologizing to BP's CEO for being "shakendown" by the Obama administration.
That better make it into some DCCC commercials this fall.
Posted by: Ugh | June 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM
This country's worship of wealth and the wealthy, and the capture of our political system by those same elites, will be our undoing.
They're our royalty.
Posted by: russell | June 17, 2010 at 11:31 AM
I'm leaving for Paris tomorrow for a 12-day vacation. The unions over there are planning a big mobilization for next Thursday over Sarkozy's plan to raise the retirement age...from 60 to 62.
Now, one can debate the merits of the unions' argument on this particular issue. But at the very least, it's going to be awfully refreshing seeing working people out in the streets and pushing back in large numbers.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | June 17, 2010 at 12:19 PM
We also have a country where a corporation, via gross negligence, can cause the greatest environmental catastrophe of our time and possibly ruin the livelihoods of scores of Americans and a member of the US House of Representatives apologizes to the corporation for asking them to cover some of the costs.
American Conversatism as it is currently practiced is a cancer.
Posted by: Der Blindschtiller | June 17, 2010 at 12:28 PM
i can't wait to see the conservative regulars defend this one.
come on guys, get to it!
Posted by: cleek | June 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Not to mention the fine job we did in Iraq demonstrating the safe, peaceful, benign nature of powerful democracies.
You're absolute right about the worship of the wealthy. Middle class Americans identify with the very wealthy but not with the poor, even though their chances of joining the former are infinitesimal and their risk of involuntarily joining the latter are substantial and growing. It's understandable but it's not very smart.
Posted by: Jacob Davies | June 17, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has awarded Northrop Grumman $517 million to build 3, football-field long blimps. Or, Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) systems, if you prefer.
I guess they're tired of relying on those a$$ hole at the Air Force.
Posted by: Ugh | June 17, 2010 at 01:00 PM
They're our royalty.
That's fine, but why do we always get stuck with Bourbons and Hohenzollerns? Can't we get a Julianna or a Haakon VII once in a while?
Posted by: Hogan | June 17, 2010 at 01:00 PM
The rich are only rich because they deserve it, and the poor are only poor because they deserve it. That's redistribution to the deserving right there...
Posted by: sanbikinoraion | June 17, 2010 at 01:13 PM
On behalf of BP, I'd like to apologize to Joe Barton for not paying him more for that apology.
Posted by: John Thullen | June 17, 2010 at 01:20 PM
BP is getting fleeced and played for chumps by the evil redistribution of wealth that Obama has forced upon them.
i think it's amazing Democrats get elected at all, but damn, it's even more amazing that they sometimes lose to these clowns.
Posted by: cleek | June 17, 2010 at 01:23 PM
Some quotes from Oliver Willis' twitter feed, brought to you by mixtermix at the Juice Stand:
"Sorry we got our ocean in your oil mr hayward, wont happen again” and “those pelicans are really gumming up your drills, sorry about that bp”.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 17, 2010 at 01:26 PM
They're our royalty.
That's fine, but why do we always get stuck with Bourbons and Hohenzollerns? Can't we get a Julianna or a Haakon VII once in a while?
I (mildly protest) against this slander of the Hohenzollern dynasty. Compared to other contemporary ruling nobility they (almost) always were less corrupt, less profligate and far more interested in the wellbeing of their state and people (and statistically far more peaceful, being at war only 50% of the time). And where else could one find monarchs that would walk unannounced into randomly selected offices checking the books personally thus keeping the public servants honest and wary? I mean except as a publicity stunt.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 18, 2010 at 05:24 AM
Also the Hohenzollern kings and princes preferred to lead their armies in war themselves, often from the front (it's quite remarkable how few got themsleves killed that way).
Posted by: Hartmut | June 18, 2010 at 05:31 AM
Also the Hohenzollern kings and princes preferred to lead their armies in war themselves
I often think that the real heart of leadership is putting your own skin in the game.
And no, that's not really OT.
Posted by: russell | June 18, 2010 at 09:03 AM
There are two types of leaders
Type A: Forward!
Type B: After Me!/Follow me!
OT: in the movie 'Chapayev' there is a very funny discussion abou that very topic.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 18, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Let me see if I can summarize the reasons for not raising taxes on the super rich:
- if taxes are too high, people will have no incentive to innovate, work hard, etc., so the economy will suffer
- "too high" generally means anything more than 80% of current rates -- no matter what they are compared to any other time in history
- that constraint to innovation applies especially to those who already make more in a year than they could spend in a lifetime. After all, lowering their net income to only 80% of possible lifetime spending would be a substantial disincentive.
Whatever the merits of the second one, I'm really having more trouble wrapping my head around that last one. (No doubt one of our usual commenters will explain it in simple enough terms that I can understand.)
Posted by: wj | June 18, 2010 at 10:58 AM
that constraint to innovation applies especially to those who already make more in a year than they could spend in a lifetime.
I think you greatly underestimate the ability of very high earners to spend money.
The luxury goods markets are generally doing fine.
Really creative, productive people do what they do because it's interesting, challenging, and fun to them. The money is a nice perk and a fun way to keep score, but if the really stupid money wasn't there they'd still do what they do.
The only people who'd take their bat and ball and go home if top marginal rates went up a few points are folks we'd be better off without anyway. My two cents.
Posted by: russell | June 18, 2010 at 03:07 PM
The only people who'd take their bat and ball and go home if top marginal rates went up a few points are folks we'd be better off without anyway. My two cents.
Bernie Madoff, perhaps?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | June 18, 2010 at 03:13 PM
The luxury goods markets are generally doing fine.
So I'm innocently watching TV a couple of days ago, when a silky, smokey voice interrupts the news to ask:
"Have you ever driven a car with real silver dust hand polished into the wood?"
Why, no. No I haven't. Neither do I own a hand-crafted disk drive or a pearl-handled weed whacker. There must be something wrong with me.
If I were a good consumer; if I were doing my fair share to stimulate the economy; if I were the kind of person who gives honest employment to woodcarvers and hand-polishers in the automobile industry; then this country would be in far better shape. And I would deserve a tax cut for my patriotism.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | June 19, 2010 at 02:23 AM
Our rich are not yet in the league of those that could buy individually designed planets from the Magratheans. The sky is NOT the limit for luxury.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 19, 2010 at 03:21 AM
I believe that's an Infiniti commercial, Tony P. A few of my friends and I were discussing the silly things we wouldn't do if we somehow came into money, and one was to spend far too much on expensive cars. That's not to say that Infinitis are absurdly expensive, but the silver dust in the wood seemed to exemplify the kind of useless, superficial luxury we were discussing, so it came up. I wonder if Infiniti's marketing people realize how ridiculous that commercial sounds to some people, though they may not care, since those people aren't likely to buy Infinitis (when perfectly good Nissans are available for less money).
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | June 19, 2010 at 07:03 AM
"Have you ever driven a car with real silver dust hand polished into the wood?"
On top of everything else, does wood with silver dust ground into it actually look good? I think I prefer wood with a simpler finish.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | June 19, 2010 at 06:59 PM