The Golden Era of Profitability
One more post before I log out to enjoy this anticipated holiday weekend.
The New York Times has reported on the plight of the working class:
The article goes on to quote Ben Bernanke:
It's always been easy enough to blame the affected for their status in our economy... they're immigrants or under-educated or unemployable or they haven't learned to adapt or they've made bad decisions or maybe they're just lazy. Or, if one chooses to abstain from individual judgements then he can take the more politically expedient route and blame the unions, the schools, the parents, illegal immigration, goverment regulation, and taxation. Either way, we've provenly marvelously adept at finding excuses for blowing off the leave-behind segment of our population as long as we, ourselves, are doing ok.
Eventually, though, as more and more of the middle class are affected, this is going to get harder to do. Oh, and to those of you who lack the motivation to examine this issue because you aren't affected: It's probably just a matter of time before you are, or your family members, or your kids, or your friends, or your neighbors.
I'm just sayin'.
The New York Times has reported on the plight of the working class:
...wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”Smarter folks than I have been pouring over this latest round of economic numbers but it seems to me that if productivity is up, wages are down (particularly in a "tight" labor market with only 4% unemployment), and profits are at an all time high, well... something ain't working the way it's supposed to.
The article goes on to quote Ben Bernanke:
In a speech on Friday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.”Gee, ya think? Call me a flaming bleeding heart pinko commie French loving populist sympathizer if you will, but I think there comes a time when we have to start asking ourselves as a nation just how we want to live.
It's always been easy enough to blame the affected for their status in our economy... they're immigrants or under-educated or unemployable or they haven't learned to adapt or they've made bad decisions or maybe they're just lazy. Or, if one chooses to abstain from individual judgements then he can take the more politically expedient route and blame the unions, the schools, the parents, illegal immigration, goverment regulation, and taxation. Either way, we've provenly marvelously adept at finding excuses for blowing off the leave-behind segment of our population as long as we, ourselves, are doing ok.
Eventually, though, as more and more of the middle class are affected, this is going to get harder to do. Oh, and to those of you who lack the motivation to examine this issue because you aren't affected: It's probably just a matter of time before you are, or your family members, or your kids, or your friends, or your neighbors.
I'm just sayin'.
posted by Logic101 at 9/01/2006 03:24:00 PM
4 Comments:
Your Quote: "Oh, and to those of you who lack the motivation to examine this issue because you aren't affected: It's probably just a matter of time before you are, or your family members, or your kids, or your friends, or your neighbors."
Sarcastic Response:
"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked..."
We here at Think, Dammit! don't mind being called out when it's necessary BUT there's a wee bit of difference between calling someone an unpatriotic traitor in a plainly manipulative attempt to coerce support for a questionable play - Vs - pointing out a motivation for examining an issue.
I'm no fan of the current administration, and feel they have taken advantage of the situation.
However, my point IS you always have to scare people to get them to do something no matter what and it isn't always a bad thing. You do it, I do it, we all do it.
EX:
Sir, your house is on fire!
Oh my god, i got to jump out of bed right now and get my family!
Yes, they use fear, but what are they supposed to do? Tell the people everything is a bed of roses?
Saying somebody is using fear to make you do something becomes an ironic self fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not sure I understand your point or what it is we're debating, actually.
Assuming you were referring to the Goering quote I posted, he said:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
The quote refers to a specific dance. The first step is to present the idea of being under attack (does not have to be a literal war... it could be a figurative war, such as the "war on Christmas"). This second step is to create the "you're either with us or against us" subtext by deriding the detractors and discrediting their positions (invoking patriotism is a very handy tool in this regard, apparently).
I don't see how this applies to the post we're commenting on, exactly. I agree that fear is an excellent (and natural) motivator, though I don't think that is the whole of what Goering was implying.
Post a Comment
<< Home