Obama's most Conspicuous Failing

[GostHacked]

There is no income inequality...because there is no income equality. It has never and will never exist.

It's because the game is rigged.

[GostHacked]

If you're concerned that the top earners are not given enough recognition for paying more for programs, don't be. Government has been on a multi-decade campaign to ensure that economic gains go almost exclusively to the top earners, so rest assured that government works for them more than for others.

Quite right.

[cybercoma]

In other words, let's stay away from mathematical clarity so we can deal with an ideological agenda. No thanks.

Mathematical clarity? The actual, that is not your hypothetical, numbers are your clarity. Can someone's proportion shrink, while still earning in absolute terms more? Of course. That's a stupid and irrelevant red herring that has nothing to do with the actual experiences of people. It ignores that the proportion of the average salary that it takes to pay for an education, transportation, telecommunications, housing, food, and fuel have all increased. Less than a generation ago, someone could buy a car and pay for an entire year of university, rent, food, etc. on a summer of work. That's not possible now. Not even remotely. The vast majority of undergraduates are taking student loans on top of part time jobs. Point being that their absolute increase is completely irrelevant when all of the gains from growth are going to the top earners. Those on the bottom will be squeezed further and further as the cost of necessities outpace the table scraps that are thrown to them.

As for the posted graphs, they clearly show income growth across all quintiles up until ~2000. Since 2000, it's been stagnant or slightly dropping across all quintiles (the "lost decade"). Even the "top 0.01%" saw stagnation from 2000 onward.

So neither basic math nor the presented data support your assertions.

Your interpretation is lousy. The reason bush_cheney wants to talk about quintiles is because larger gradients masks the problem. Do you think the 80th percentile has more in common with the 50th percentile or the 99th percentile? Wages and wealth are not normally distributed, so equal gradients tell us absolutely nothing. You should know this with your pleas about mathematical knowledge. Taking 20% chunks hides where the wealth is being concentrated and that's in the top 1%. Even in the top 1% the bottom of that 1% look more like the rabble than the 0.1%.

The point is that the way wealth is distributed in society is unsustainable. The wealthiest are reaping the profits of the wealth that is generated by the working stiffs at the bottom. As those people create more and more wealth, less and less of it goes to them. It's being concentrated and hoarded at the top. When you have a class of people that are far outpacing everyone else, it cannot continue forever. It leads to a ton of social problems, but put those aside for a moment. It's shit for the economy too. There's only so many pairs of a pants a single person needs. If that wealth were distributed more equitably (not equally), then more pairs of pants are going to be sold with the same amount of wealth in the economy. This creates more jobs, which further creates more wealth.

The system is broken. It's inverted and concentrating wealth and power at the top. Great if your business is making money through shell games with cash. Terrible for everyone else, even others at the top who make their money off actually producing something of value for society. A more equitable distribution of economic gains would benefit them with more consumers demanding their goods and services.

That's not what's happening. Those at the bottom who have remained stagnant or gained next to nothing have less money to inject into the economy, as the proportion of their income that goes to necessities increases. How exactly can business be signalled to produce more and create more jobs when there's people sitting here arguing that less people should benefit from economic growth? The less people who benefit, the slower the economy. And that's why we're 7 years away from the crash and still limping.

Until people who justify the concentration of wealth at the top wake up, there will never be a full recovery unless there some paradigm shift in the economy which is highly unlikely.

So now you have to ask yourself, is this by design? Do the people with the power to change this not want a full recovery? Is there some reason to keep inflation and the economy limping?

The answer to that lies in the reserve army of labour. It's basic economics that low inflation is associated with higher unemployment. If people are kept unemployed, then companies reduce their costs by fostering a culture that tells people they should be grateful to have a job. You never hear that companies should be grateful that people sell their labour to them.

So by design, you have companies who amorally (that is not to say immorally) drive their costs down to zero because they seek profit and only seek profit. In order to do this, they keep the vast majority of people down, while concentrating wealth to their executives and the top earners. In doing so, they will eventually run out of customers and the system will collapse upon itself.

[Bob Macadoo]

Mathematical clarity?..... In order to do this, they keep the vast majority of people down, while concentrating wealth to their executives and the top earners. In doing so, they will eventually run out of customers and the system will collapse upon itself.

Wait that's not Math you're talking about.......I call thread drift on you.

[dre]

Income inequality is a myth, as it presumes that income equality ever existed or was a goal in America or anywhere else.

How little you know about your own nations history.

Income inequality is a bad word to use, because the goal of most policies design to foster a relatively egalitarian society is not income equality. Its about avoiding the extreme concentration of wealth. And this has always been a goal. That is why we have you have a graduated income tax, its why you have estate taxation, its why you broke up the robber barons and railroad tycoons with taxation.

And its not about making sure every person makes exactly $62576 dollars per year. Its about dealing with the extreme concentration of wealth and political power that we saw during the french, russian, and english aristrocies, and that we are starting to see in todays modern aristocracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

How little you know about your own nations history.

Income inequality is a bad word to use, because the goal of most policies design to foster a relatively egalitarian society ....

Another Google expert from Canada who obviously knows even less....America was not founded as a "relatively egalitarian society"...far from it. So called "income inequality" and related "Gini coefficient" are just the same old half-ass attempts at setting the political table for wealth redistribution.

[Moonlight Graham]

Say the size of the whole is "100 units" and the "rich" control 90% of it (90 units). That leaves 10 units for the "poor".

Now let's say we have some years of growth, but the proportion that the rich control also has grown. Say the size of the whole is now "200 units" but the rich control 94% of it (188 units). That leaves 12 units for the poor, they still are 2 units better off than before. (Let's say these numbers are already adjusted for inflation and population growth).

Yes, the rich benefited "disproportionately". But everyone is still better off than before. That's the very simple point people have been making here. You can't really argue with the math: when the economy grows overall, it is entirely possible for the top 1% to get the majority of the benefit, but everyone else to still get some benefit. In Canada, that is indeed precisely what has happened over the last several decades.

Now, you can certainly argue such a scenario is not ideal. That the rich should not control an ever greater % of overall wealth. And I would tend to agree with that argument. But to make the statements you have been making is just mathematically wrong.

Good summary.

[Moonlight Graham]

I would say it's the inability to reverse inequality and reverse the trend of business and wealth commandeering government for their own interests:

More back to the topic of Obama, I never had any expectation that Obama would do much if anything to reverse economic inequality. If you're running as the presidential candidate for either major US party it's almost inevitably going to mean you have to sell your soul to the powers that control Washington (corporations/lobbyists/interest groups/crooks etc.), and Obama was bought and paid for by outside interests before he even became POTUS. I knew from the Democratic primary debates in early 2008 that Obama was just playing the game, saying all the "safe" things, while candidates like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich said the REAL things that needed to be said, pointed fingers, but of course weren't supported by voters.

So like Bryan said on Page 1:

Obama didn't fail at all. He successfully slung a huge pile of obvious manure, and people bought it, twice.

The failures are the ones who believed him and voted for him.

[Michael Hardner]

Another Google expert from Canada who obviously knows even less....America was not founded as a "relatively egalitarian society"...far from it. So called "income inequality" and related "Gini coefficient" are just the same old half-ass attempts at setting the political table for wealth redistribution.

Wealth distribution happens. When the 1% does better, that's also wealth distribution - why wouldn't it be ?

Gini coefficient is just a mathematical tool to monitor it. Don't you like math ?

[Michael Hardner]

More back to the topic of Obama, I never had any expectation that Obama would do much if anything to reverse economic inequality. If you're running as the presidential candidate for either major US party it's almost inevitably going to mean you have to sell your soul to the powers that control Washington (corporations/lobbyists/interest groups/crooks etc.),

That doesn't seem like a good strategy for a populist.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Gini coefficient is just a mathematical tool to monitor it. Don't you like math ?

Then just call it that instead of the very misleading and expectation setting "Income inequality". The U.S. has developed wealth re-distribution (not distribution) policies to support the welfare state, not an economically "egalitarian society". The 1980's made this clear with "I got mine....now go get yours".

[dre]

America was not founded as a "relatively egalitarian society"...far from it.

Actually it was. You should read what your founding fathers had to say about it.

Washington said that America would....

"not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

John Adams wrote that wealth concentration would...

"destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison believe the government should work to prevent...

"an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches."

The way America was set up could have easily mirrored the European Feudalism that these people left behind. Instead if was specifically set up to prevent that, and to provide stability through relative egalitarianism.

Again you know very little about your own history. Your government has moved time and time again to ensure a relatively equitable distribution of wealth. In fact the current trend towards government encouraged concentration of wealth is only about 30 years old. Just because you cant remember what came before that does not need mean it didnt happen.

[Michael Hardner]

Then just call it that instead of the very misleading and expectation setting "Income inequality". The U.S. has developed wealth re-distribution (not distribution) policies to support the welfare state, not an economically "egalitarian society". The 1980's made this clear with "I got mine....now go get yours".

Welfare state, egalitarian society... these are just terms that people on both sides of the political spectrum use to describe the same thing.

The point is that the Gini coefficient measures something useful to the state when planning the (political) economy.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Again you know very little about your own history. Your government has moved time and time again to ensure a relatively equitable distribution of wealth. In fact the current trend towards government encouraged concentration of wealth is only about 30 years old. Just because you cant remember what came before that does not need mean it didnt happen.

That sho nuf makes us 'po legacy of slaves feel much better ! Yessuh, sho' am glad that govmint was always lookin' out for my ancestors' and other 'po people's best economic interests. Took all that robber baron money and gave it to the people! Even betta, we gots Canadians worried 'bout it too.

In fact, my government has moved to address poverty and a minimum standard of living, not some scheme that evenly distributes wealth for a more favourable Gini coefficient across all income levels. Great Society programs are barely two generations old.

Edited November 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Welfare state, egalitarian society... these are just terms that people on both sides of the political spectrum use to describe the same thing.

Nope...these are two very different ideas and concepts. "War on poverty" is not synonymous with an egalitarian society.

The point is that the Gini coefficient measures something useful to the state when planning the (political) economy.

What is the political economy ? Is it different than the general economy ? Does a USF Obama cell phone make me equal with someone who has a new iPhone 6 and unlimited data plan?

[Michael Hardner]

What is the political economy ? Is it different than the general economy ?

It's the economy that can get political support. For example, passing a bill to remove the minimum wage may make political sense but it wouldn't fly politically.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's the economy that can get political support. For example, passing a bill to remove the minimum wage may make political sense but it wouldn't fly politically.

OK...but I like your improbable example. Only about 3% of the U.S. workforce earns minimum wage, sharply down from levels just 20 years ago. It seems that the other economy, the one that really matters, pays folks better.

[dre]

Welfare state, egalitarian society... these are just terms that people on both sides of the political spectrum use to describe the same thing.

No... They are as BC said, two totally different concepts.

[Moonlight Graham]

That doesn't seem like a good strategy for a populist.

He's a pseudo-populist, not a true populist. Obama has given up many of his principles to be POTUS and he has played the game and played it very well, like Bill Clinton did.

[Michael Hardner]

]

Obama has given up many of his principles to be POTUS and he has played the game and played it very well, like Bill Clinton did.

How exactly did he play it 'well' ? Clinton was remembered - fairly or not - as a broadly popular president who survived personal scandals, and governed the last great prosperous time that the US enjoyed. Obama ?

[Moonlight Graham]

]

How exactly did he play it 'well' ? Clinton was remembered - fairly or not - as a broadly popular president who survived personal scandals, and governed the last great prosperous time that the US enjoyed. Obama ?

I'm not saying whether or not Obama's been a successful President in terms of policy, or Clinton, I'm saying Obama (and Clinton) were very successful in making the public/voters believe they are someone who they are not. Their personal public image is more positive than the people they actually are.

Obama put himself forward as a populist, a man of the people for the little guys, as a politician Americans and people around the world could look to for hope & change, and some still may see him as that. But in most ways he's not, he hasn't changed that many things, and he's left how the system works in Washington virtually untouched. He genuinely means well with some things but for some reason he won't stand up and say it like it is (like ie: Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich do) and as POTUS do what needs to be done, because he's a sellout.

Clinton is similar in "playing the game", in that he's sold himself as this nice, well-meaning, aww-shucks southerner, when behind the scenes he's a cut throat slimeball politician and getting BJ's from interns. Hillary would love to have that kind of image but she just isn't as good at hiding the fact that she's a viscous slimeball politician like her husband.