Want more war? Vote Obama

From the February 25th issue of The American Conservative, Brendan O'Neill argues that Barack Obama is far from being the anti-war candidate his supporters believe him to be.

Yes we can!

The blind hope in Obama-as-messiah is most clearly expressed in the widespread delusion that he would be a “president of peace,” welcomed by a world eager to bury the warmongering ways of the office’s former occupant and renew its respect for America. Columnist Michael Kinsley praised Obama’s “valuable experience … as what you might call a ‘world man’—Kenyan father, American mother, four formative years living in Indonesia, more years in the ethnic stew of Hawaii, middle name of Hussein, and so on—in an increasingly globalized world.” But from my sedate Obamarama-free home in London, I’m not cheered by the prospect of this “world man” in the White House. Rather, I see him for what he is—or for what he threatens to become. Having never been stirred by the sight of Obama giving an MLK-style speech on the need for change, I can only take the candidates at their words. And Obama’s words are ominous indeed.

President Obama would be a warmonger. He would be a wide-eyed, zealous interventionist who would not think twice about using America’s “military muscle” (his words) to overthrow “rogue states” and to suppress America’s enemies, real and imagined. He would go farther even than President Bush in transforming the globe into America’s backyard and staffing it with spies and soldiers. He would relish the “American mission” to police the world and topple tyrannical regimes.

After eight years of Bush’s military meddling in the Middle East, if you want more war, vote Obama.

Two myths must be exploded: first, that Barack Obama was a principled and passionate opponent of the war in Iraq; second, that if he were installed in the White House he would resist the temptation to launch new wars and would instead usher in an era of peace.

OK; Vote for Obama, get war. Vote for Hillary, get war.
Vote for McCain, get war.

Those are the only choices on offer. Barring the biggest "black swan" event since 9/11 one of those three worthies will be the next president.

Is this happenstance, coincidence, or ememy action?

More Obama baiting, Codyed, is only going to provide you with more honest and frank rebuttals. For conservatives to call out a Realist after decades of prostrating themselves before the altar of Kissinger is nothing short of obscene.

There will be further engagement with non-state actors outside of Iraq. Obama's been frank about that from the beginning, and I've never met an Obama support who has had illusions otherwise.

Of course, to pretend that his supporters think he's Eugene V. Debs is your right, however pointless and masturbatory it may be.

Ok, this is goofy beyond all rational thought.

I don't know who Brendan O'Neill is, but he seems to know my friend, Mr. Jameson.

Now, now, makifat, there's no reason to rub Mr. Jameson's name in the mud. Maybe it's just me, but I have a feeling that Mr. O'Neill has taken to sailing on the good ship Cutty Sark...

I just hope someone has the sense to roll him over so he doesn't choke on his own sick. Then again, better perhaps to just leave him be...

OK. In days of old when knights were bold and people knew how to rhyme, you'ld win the war, despite the gore, but then you'ld have a great time.

So how is it that we've dropped a trillion samolians and more, but people are feeling poor, not rich, and the whole economy is on the skids (Technical term of art, you understand) and the eagle bows to the loon?

Isnt there something terribly wrong with this picture?

I believe General Eisenhower termed it "the mulitary industrial complex" and it has been dominate in the US since the 1950's. Peace has never been a signficantly powerful faction in US politics. Read a bit of history for more examples.

#7: My guess is hindsight bias.

http://www.apa.org/releases/hindsight.html

From it:

"Hindsight bias can occur when people make a judgment or choice and are later asked to recall their judgment. If, in the interim, they're told what the correct judgment would have been, their memory of their own judgment may become biased toward the new information."

"So how is it that we've dropped a trillion samolians and more, but people are feeling poor, not rich, and the whole economy is on the skids"

Oh, I wouldn't say the whole economy -
The boys at Halliburton are feeling fairly flush.

You know, the guys with the top hats lighting their cigars with hundred dollar bills.

#10: You guys are delusional. We are tanking on marriages and foreign investment, that's about all:

http://www.prosperity.org/ranking.aspx

that is a cool link, thanks

Ref # 9
Ah! I knew it all along! ......oops!

Seriously though, if I say now "I was agin it all along, I knew how badly it would turn out" ..that could well be hindsight bias, especially if you have the videotapes of me cheering for the
"wrong " side then.

But how is a bad outcome by itself evidence of hindsight bias? I dont understand the application
of the theorem to the present case.

#13: the bad out come is your own personal distortion, your own bias, and those who feel the same way will nod their heads and say, "yes, yes, it is true."

But it isn't true for everyone, or across the board by applied objective measures (see prosperity measures as linked in #11).

People may be feeling poor, but they are, in reality, enjoying unprecedented levels of wide-spread material wealth, in the U.S. at least.

edit to add: I think counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias are closely related, in fact I think they feed off each other.

ref #11

Those of us who are doing well, are doing very well indeed thank you very much.

But the rising tide has not been floating all boats.

I think there are many working people in the mid or even mid to high salariat who are one major illness away from the tin cup. If a major depression should come our way, it wouldnt even take an illness to throw many people onto the street.

There was an article just the other day in the New York Times about how "mid-level" salaried jobs (30K to 80K per year) are decreasing in Silicon Valley. "Cock a doodle doo, We're number one" wont cut it.

We aren't number one, we are number three.

ref #16
The chart seems to say US overall rank=1 tied with
Norway and Sweden; (US material rank=6. US satisfaction rank=2 US Overal Rank=1).

Norway is material rank=3

I dont see an equality measure such as gini coefficient on the chart (is it there but I've missed it?)

Norway and Sweden have higher income and wealth equality than the US (but it costs them plenty in taxes and govt intervention in the economy)

It can be read as a three-way tie, as the report indicates, but the qualities ( the report calls them drivers) that determined the ranking placement are themselves ranked from most important to least important, and as such the raw score can be even further refined:

“Through responsible management of its natural resource wealth, Norway has achieved rapid economic growth as well as excellent social conditions. Sweden may perform less well economically, but has world-leading scores on the most important social indicators including political and civil liberties, community life, health, leisure time, and equality of opportunity. The United States has respectable scores in most areas, and is exceptional in the degree to which its citizens maintain strong religious faith and report that they feel secure in their ability to make free choices and control their own lives. Both of these are factors that, other things being equal, correlate strongly with life satisfaction.”

I read this as giving a preference to increased material wealth over life satisfaction, but I suppose that is open to interpretation.

The American exception: http://www.prosperity.org/call_america.aspx

As to Gini coefficient, I don’t know enough about statistics to answer your question. It has to do with distribution, correct?

ref Gini coefficient

Its a measure of inequality.

The Wolfram site has a very clear set of definitions for people who like the real deal, but I think seeing the concept expressed geometrically makes it very accessible even to the math averse.

Look up the Lorenz curve and look at perfect equality vs perfect IN-equality and you'll see what I mean right away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Oh, by the way, I just saw on rawstory.com that 2% of mortgages are in foreclusure, said to be an historic high for the US.

So 98% are not?

I understand the ripple effects here, but still, 2% seems low to me.

Thanks for the link.

Look down your block. For every 100 homes you see, two are in foreclosure. That is pretty high. Banks do not like foreclosure. That cuts into their profit margin pretty deeply.

RE: Gini coefficient:
The measure in the prosperity study is income - there is no mention of income disparity that I can find.

I would imagine that this would lead to wholesale distortion, the envy warp - but I do think I see your point and agree that it is interesting.

But as a measure of prosperity? Real vs. perceived wealth? I'm not sure that it fits.

I won't question the study (as I am a statistical moron), but I believe things can change on the ground very quickly. When was the study released? The excrement has only just begun to hit the ventilator. Believe me, I'm not praying for a recession!

Purely anecdotally, the "for sale" signs are growing faster than the dandelions in my neighborhood. I don't know how many are approaching foreclosure, or how many are owned by speculators trying to dump them, but the sight is quite unsettling. Something is afoot.

It is the first annual index, dated 2007 and based on 40 years worth of data:

From the Index:

"The Index is based on the statistical testing of 40 years of data on economic growth and life satisfaction survey results for more than 50 countries worldwide. The scores are constructed based on countries’ relative performance on the factors found to drive or restrain economic growth and to increase or diminish average life satisfaction."

ref #22
You can usually find gini coefficients for income and for real weath.

Since income is generally more equally distributed than wealth, those who are interested in showing that things arent so bad usually shoow you the income distribution, whereas those with he opposite agenda will show you the wealth distribution curves.

I'm no specialist, but I'm buying the idea that the distribution of actual wealth is somehow the more "fundamental" or more telling sadistic.

I seem to remember reading that in Colombia the wealthiest part of the population own something like 90% of the wealth. Bugger didnt say what % of the population owned that, only that it was "tiny". Grump!

Coming late to the discussion and having no interest in economic hair-splitting, I would like to point out an omission in #1. I don't see anywhere where an actual argument is made that Barack Obama will lead us into more wars. Jeez, I know the value of unsubstantiated assertions and they're not worth much unless I'm the one making them, in which case it would behoove you all greatly to sit up and take notice.

Did I miss where this argument was, like, you know, actually made?

> re 26 "Did I miss where this argument was, like, you know, actually made?"

Yes, thanks, G. I share this question.

Party poopers.

26/27

I don't think anyone (well, maybe one, and probably not even him) took the issue seriously. As far as there was a consensus, it was that O'Neill started St. Patrick's Day early.

I'm convinced some of you did not read beyond this spittle inducing image:



It's understandable. The image was meant to elicit strong emotions. Don't feel bad, though, Rudy Giuliani fans went apoplectic when TAC put him fascist garb, holding a copy of Norman Podhoretz's recent book, World War IV (read the relevant article).

Just because Obama has some disagreements with the way in which the war in Iraq was fought, Brendan O'Neil points out that Obama would not hesitate to send troops into other countries given the slightest provocation (even at one point Obama suggested we might have to send troops into nuclear armed Pakistan).

BGP, The American Conservative has been the most consistently anti-war mainstream publication since its inception in 2002. Read the founding editorial here. If anything, they are more authentically realist in the approach to foreign policy than the interventionist inclinations of Obama's campaign. Unless you define realism to mean intervening in a sovereign country's affairs without imposing democracy, then yes--Obama is a realist.

TAC has also been one of the most intellectually curious magazines to boot, featuring talent from different political persuasions within conservatism and outside of it. Brendan O'Neil is a Marxist, for instance. Glenn Greenwald, whose article on the authoritarian temptation can be read here, is a loquacious liberal.

This sounds like a joke, but it's not. I found a copy of TAC in the men's room at the gym a couple of weeks ago. I will vouch for its being pretty anti-Iraq War, and not particularly happy with good ol' GWB either. There were even a couple of other things that I tended to agree with (such as complaining about grown men walking around dressed like 12 year olds - but that's just to say that it appeals to the curmudgeon in me).

I went back today, but except for the unusable glossy cover, the magazine was gone. (Ok, that was a joke.)

To presume from a one-off statement about going into Pakistan should there be actionable intelligence* regarding al-Qaida activity that Obama is a "warmonger" any more than anyone else running is stretching things to absurd limits.

Now, why do I suddenly hear "Barbara Ann" playing in my head?

*Which is apparently in pretty short supply, given that GWB has apparently long given up the idea of bringing OBL to justice.

Why were you reading a used copy of TAC you found in the men's room?

>30 codyed: The promotion of the active imposition of democracy in the third and developing world is a neo-conservative policy, not a realist one, Codyed.

If you want a President who will not categorically state that he or she will act on, yes, actionable intelligence regarding the wear abouts of our non-state enemies if and when the host nation in question refuses to take action, you are effectively arguing for passive coexistence with our non-state enemies.

Realists have a problem with that.

So I guess it should not matter if the host nation which refuses to act on non-state enemies is nuclear armed? Granted, Pakistan may decline the use of such weapons if it came down to it for fear of a massive, civilization ending retaliation. However, Obama's seeming willingness to attack such a country illustrates the extent to which an Obama administration would play with fire. It's quite clear that such overriding factors as being nuclear armed do not fit into his realist foreign policy.

>34 codyed: "However, Obama's seeming willingness to attack such a country illustrates the extent to which he will play with fire."

Isolationism is not an option in the face of a real and viable threat. A realist explores diplomatic options, but, if they are genuinely exhausted, they act. To do otherwise is to welcome further atrocities.

To play with fire is to wage war ideologically, like the neo-conservatives have: to consider a strategic and much maligned socialist dictatorship an acceptable target in a war against Islamist militants; to believe that democracy can be imposed on a nation in which the very concept of democracy is alien even within civil society; and so on.

To assault specific targets which have dedicated their lives to destroying the very fabric of our society? That's common sense. To argue otherwise is to abdicate responsibility for the safety of our society.

Pakistan does not have the capacity to strike us conventionally, and, while the ISI (Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA) does have a long history of working with Islamists, the military does not: indeed, the Pakistani military has lost more men to Islamists in the post-9/11 period than the entire "coalition of the willing" has in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The military, not the ISI, controls Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and the Pashtun and Punjabi soldiers who make up the bulk of the military force will take much solace in the elimination of Bin Laden and his uncontrollable militant allies in the tribal areas of North West Pakistan (edit: regardless of whether it is they or we who ultimately take them out).

34
So you honestly think that if we (that is, Obama) went after OBL or his cohorts in the Pakistani hinterlands, there is a chance in hades that Pakistan would respond with a nuclear strike?

I hope you can come up with something better than that before election day.

And, by the way, re: #32, what exactly are conservatives DOING with those magazines that I should be concerned about?

I never proposed isolationism as an option, merely prudence. Sometimes the right thing to do is to not pursue. If a cop is in a vehicular chase with a criminal during a time when children are being let out of school, would it then make sense for the cop to continue pursuing the criminal? The cop must weigh the benefits and costs of the pursuit. Is putting the lives of children at stake worth apprehending a criminal that will commit another crime in the future?

Same too with foreign policy. Will the benefits of action X exceed its costs?

One can easily envision a scenario in which our bombing and killing suspected al-Qaeda suspects in Pakistan could unleash a wave of nationalist fervor. Understandably so. Remember September 11th? After that day the differences among many Americans seemed to evaporate with the morning mist. Black, white, Christian, Mormon, you name it--it was all agreed upon that someone had to pay. Are we any different from, say, a mud-hut dwelling Muslim Pakistani and a secular, Atheist Pakistani? It's amazing how a little conflict can bring about fraternity amongst disparate individuals.

Very few people in the Arab world liked Saddam Hussein. He was an evil tyrant that abused his people when they stepped out of line. After we toppled his regime, Arabs didn't clasp their hands together and say good riddance to bad rubbish and go about their lives. They were angry--thousands of angry men flocked to Iraq over the years to fight who they perceived to be the bigger enemy: Americans.

Pakistan may not have the capacity to strike us conventionally, but they do have the capacity to strike us in other ways, specifically terrorism--chemical and biological.

One thing is for certain, Obama and neo-conservatives are both cocksure that military action X will accrue beneficial results Y over time. Which is, of course, balderdash.

So no, I'm not abdicating responsibility for the safety of our society. I'm trying to argue against those that take a myopic view of military action.

"One can easily envision a scenario in which our bombing and killing suspected al-Qaeda suspects in Pakistan could unleash a wave of nationalist fervor." - Codyed

Perhaps, but only if that individual has not studied the history of Pakistan. Even the Islamist parties are divided first by ethnicity, and then again by ideology. Four groups care passionately about the North Western tribal areas of Pakistan: Pashtun advocates of a greater Afghanistan; Pashtun advocates of a greater Pashtunistan carved out of Afghanistan and Pakistan; tribal leaders in the region who do not want to be beholden to any nation; and the military of Pakistan (which, of course, wishes to subjugate the region once and for all). A surgical strike against separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan will only infuriate the first three groups. How do I know that? Our troops in Afghanistan have done it before, several times. The other ethnic factions in Pakistan barely took notice; they have their own battles to fight.

As for your reference to Saddam, an assault on terrorist targets bears no similarities to the conventional war which toppled him. There is no massive ground invasion, no occupation and the like. To try to compare the two is foolish.

"I'm trying to argue against those that take a myopic view of military action." -Codyed

Military action is not a zero sum game. It can be pursued openly, honestly and effectively if the ideology of the commander in chief is checked at the door. To pretend otherwise is folly, be the pretender on the left (in the form of militant pacifist) or, in your case, on the right.

As a charter subscriber to The American Conservative I was somewhat surprised to see the magazine's February 25 cover and when I had finished reading the featured article, I concluded that it's assertions were a tad hyperbolic.

Yes, Obama engaged in some foolish macho posturing to deflect Hilary's charges that he was somehow not made of stern enough stuff to make the tough national security decisions. Yes, Obama might have gone a bit overboard with the O-bomb-inator talk, but not as much overboard as the writer of the article did in mischaracterizing the candidate.

But, then, I am not nearly as expert as BGP is on Obama's character, inclinations and policies. I am now inclined to suspect that Obama just might be the "wide-eyed, zealous interventionist" that the article describes.

And BGP: I know that you hate the war criminal Kissinger with every ounce of your being, but some of your arguments for aggressive strikes in Pakistan sound very like his justifications for the disastrous bombing of Cambodia.

codyed I find your obvious political provocation quite dispicable. Aside from the fact that these so-called journalist offer only mere speculation and never directly quote whole sentences from Obama, you truly insult our intelligence by posting these lame arguments. It seems to me, that the best way to prove that Obama is a war-monger is to provide quotes (yes, even if you purposefully misinterpret them) from Obama and then analyze them.

For example, the initial post cites a journalist who quotes Obama using the phrases "military muscle" and "rogue states" but for some reason the words in between these two phrases seem to be missing (do you have any idea where they went?). At this point all context is lost precisely becaue we don't know how the two phrases are linked linguistically. For all we know the phrase "rogue states" could have come before the phrase "military muscle" or Obama could have actually been saying, 'We shouldn't use "military muscle" to overthrow "rogue states". Instead we should use the soft-power mulitlateral institutions to reform and talk to our enemies.'

See what I'm saying?

>39 LordNigelKnickKnack: "And BGP: I know that you hate the war criminal Kissinger with every ounce of your being..." -LNKK

It's true!

"...but some of your arguments for aggressive strikes in Pakistan sound very like his justifications for the disastrous bombing of Cambodia." -LNKK

Ah, but there is a difference between solitary precision attacks, and a massive carpet bombing campaign; similarly, there is a difference between engaging stateless terrorists with solitary precision attacks, and a massive carpet bombing campaign which is targeting a highly mobile guerrilla army (the Viet Cong) that is operating in tandem with a semi-conventional army (Viet Minh) in a war which is as much about national liberation as it is about ideological fervor. Do you disagree with the distinction?

Big Al: There are a few Obama quotes out there that can be googled up including the one where Obama promises to "go toe-to-toe with Rogue States".

The quote that cannot be found is the one where Obama says "My middle name might be Hussein, but I can kill Muslims with the best of them!"...because he never said that. -And I sincerely hope that he never does say anything so ignorant. I think that Zbignew is advising more tact than BGP is displaying.

Ah, but those differences!...
Between solitary precision attacks and massive carpet bombing: I think we can nearly all agree that the latter is more common and more likely.
Between stateless terrorists and a highly mobile guerilla army: No difference at all in the minds of most people in that region.
Between this jihad and a war of national liberation and fervent ideology: Again, no difference to the people over there.

Please, BGP, you are not doing your candidate any favors by defending his least deeply thought out statements. It's as if you saw that magazine cover and said to yourself : "What?... Barack a WAR-MONGER!...It can't be...But, yes!...That sure looks like Barack!...Well, then, WAR IT IS!...I better go sharpen my pencils!"

"Between solitary precision attacks and massive carpet bombing: I think we can nearly all agree that the latter is more common and more likely." -LNKK

Again, our very military based in Afghanistan has already struck terrorist targets within the region we are discussing. They sent missiles which targeted specific buildings, not bombers which assaulted the region indiscriminately.

"Between stateless terrorists and a highly mobile guerilla army: No difference at all in the minds of most people in that region." -LNKK

Well, on the one hand, the Viet Cong and the Viet Minh had access to over half a million trained soldier-citizens. On the other, the Pashtun Islamists linked to Bin Laden and his small coterie of Arabs in the North Western provinces of Pakistan have access to several thousand. The comparison is disingenuous, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Post one is simply more confirmation that the right is still unwilling to join the reality based community. There are places where change is easier from the side that you would think more naturally opposed to it - the Nixon in China phenomenon. But, this isn't one of them. Top 'o the morning to you, I say.

On the interesting discussion about measures, inequality is important to prosperity for two reasons - inequality at the top and inequality at the bottom, and the focus above is on the extent of the "rich" in a community. That has some impact, but I think the more important point is that a country is not truly prosperous, to my way of thinking, if a large number of people live in abject poverty. Extreme inequality is the mark of a society that is only half-way economically developed. It is also the mark of a society that has a limited market, where a larger part of the poor are effectively excluded from the market.

In #30, codyed said, "Unless you define realism to mean intervening in a sovereign country's affairs without imposing democracy, then yes--Obama is a realist."

I'm lost! When I read the above quote, it says intervening in a sovereign country's affairs without imposing democracy is the sole meaning of "realism". I would hardly describe BushCo as realists (we create our own reality, it doesn't get more unreal than that) considering their inability to impose a democracy. I don't know anyone who defines realism this way.

In #33, BGP said, "actionable intelligence regarding the wear abouts of our non-state enemies. . .".

I can say without equivocation or fear of naysayers that without exception ALL of our non-state enemies are far too large, far too heavy and far too ungainly to wear about.

The area under discussion here is one of the last lawless refuges on earth. I believe Pakistan would welcome the US, in that region, cleaning out the area and allowing Pakistan/Afghanistan to gain governmental control of the tribal areas.

Lunar should visit the area for a clear look at the closest example she might find on earth of the result of each person for themselves.

In #39 LordNigelKnickKnack said, "some of your arguments for aggressive strikes in Pakistan sound very like his justifications for the disastrous bombing of Cambodia."

It's hard to imagine two more different situations. A great book to read on the subject of US destruction of the neutral Cambodia during the Vietnam War is William Shawcross's Sideshow.

#44: Here is probably more than you want to know on the construction of the Prosperity Index by The Legatum Institute for Global Development , the same group that established the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship (“LCDE”) a collaboration between Legatum and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”):

Notes to the editors:

http://www.prosperity.org/downloads/ProsperityIndexNotes.pdf

Looking over theses notes, and the index itself I see that the measure they use is equality of opportunity – and I do have to agree that it is the more accurate measure of prosperity, because it is more objective and avoids what I call the envy warp. Income inequality as a measure of prosperity is problematic for a couple of reasons: it isn’t static, for one. Many economists will argue that economic inequality coupled with economic mobility will increase a nation’s prosperity (no, not the Krugman/Envy School, but – well, my buddy, Schumpeter, for one). Secondly , economic variables are not highly predictive of social satisfaction, a significant consideration when measuring overall prosperity.

From the description of "equality of opportunity" it looks like that is measured mainly by the political opportunity women have in a society, which is a vastly different thing.

Any collection of measures like this is necessarily highly subjective, since the choice of measures is nearly endless and packed with value decisions. This is an interesting set, and an interesting definition of prosperity, but it has chosen not to measure economic social stratification at all and the degress of ossification of that (an opportunity measure like extent of upward mobility).

The other big miss in my mind if they are measuring subjective prosperity and well being is cultural productivity. There are a handful of countries, like the US, France, India and Egypt, that product almost all of the world's movies, for example, and a somewhat larger set of literary powerhouses.

The one measure I'd really want to understand their data on is the stuff on commercializing new ideas - I can't believe that Germany, for example, is even in the same league as the US, let alone ahead of it.

#47: Oxford Analytica was the research partner responsible for criteria and methodology – I couldn’t find much on their website to enlighten, but they do have contact information:

http://www.oxan.com/cr/projects/LegatumProsperityIndex.asp

As to: “The other big miss in my mind if they are measuring subjective prosperity and well being is cultural productivity. There are a handful of countries, like the US, France, India and Egypt, that product almost all of the world's movies, for example, and a somewhat larger set of literary powerhouses.”

Can you imagine the morass of that one if you had to qualify the productivity? Eeegads. I love many things about America, but consider us to be egregious global cultural polluters.

No, I’m glad they left that one out – but that would be an interesting study in its own right, I think.
You doing anything for the next six months or so?

It's quite easy. There are easy statistics at hand for books, movies, and records sold, and for things like concert tickets. For qualitative measures, there are a handful of major awards in each area, and you'd likely be left relying on awards. Not perfect, given the number of Scandanavians who receive Nobels, but not bad as measure.

Healthcare is another good measure for productivity; there are lots of very wealthy Kuwaitis, but they fly to the US or Germany pretty quickly when critical healthcare issues arise.

These seem at least as relevant to prosperity as how many women obtain elective office. Or the depth of religious feeling.

By the way, I'll bet we can all add indices to our heart's consent - at the end of the day, they are all proxies for something intangible and difficult to define. What I like in that set of indices is the recognition that it's not just about money.

You do admit that there is something there, correct? Those living in the United States have a better lot in life, on average, that those living in, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

>LNKK

You're clearly missing the point; my argument (to use philosophical terms) are about validity rather than soundness. In other words, in my last post, I wasn't disputing the notion that Obama could be a war-monger; but rather, my argument was that the arguments used by the journalists whom codyed cited were fundamentally misleading. Thus, aside from the fact that I don't believe Obama to be a war-monger, based solely on what he has said (I can't get inside his head and know for sure), I think the arguments being used to call Obama a war-monger are disingenous at best and amount to pure prevarication and smearing at worst.

For example, when you post things like, "There are a few Obama quotes out there that can be googled up including the one where Obama promises to 'go toe-to-toe with Rogue States'" you're being misleading. Again, just like I said before, if Obama is saying that he's going to "go toe-to-toe with rogue states" then in order to use that quote as the foundation for an argument that Obama is a war-monger, then you have to cite the whole sentence; you can't just cite half a sentence, because to do so would be to extricate the quote from its context thereby obscuring its intended meaning.

Moreover, the quote in-of-itself says nothing about WAR. Now, of course you could ask the question 'what does Obama mean by the phrase "toe-to-toe"?' and from there you could make the argument that this ambiguous phrase leaves open the possibility for war, but I hardly think you can make a sustained argument argument for war-mongering; the possibility of war is hardly war-mongering. Obama could just be leaving open the possibility of war because he can't entirely rule it out if the situation calls for it.

My general response: Hell ya.

The US has the best healthcare and educational systems in the world, and some of the deepest and most interesting culture, and more diverse food choices than anywhere else. These are all intangibles that you just can't buy elsewhere. And we prize upward mobility and creativity in our workforce.

On the other hand, I've known people who come from India who cannot figure out how we survive: There is simply an incredible lack of capable servants in the United States, and the servants we have hardly do any work and expect to get paid so generously! And we take so little time to appreciate and celebrate life - Americans are always working!

And I've known folks who come from other countries who talk fondly of the expansive open spaces.

But, in assessing prosperity, there will always be value choices. There may be some in the world who measure prosperity by the number of wives they have.

This thread seems to have digressed from the original topic, which was to assess whether Brendan O'Neill was utterly off the wall in his assessment of Obama as militaristic and interventionist. O'Neill, as Marxist, may well be of the opinion that there is no real difference between the Democrats and Republicans on issues of foreign policy. To further his argument, he describes how Obama is similar to the neocons, but he doesn't bother to describe the very important ways that they are different.

Well, most of the populace of the United States is militaristic and interventionist. Obama's rhetoric is intended to position him as a moderate, well within American mainstream belief, and the advisors he has chosen seem to be an indication that his policies will match his rhetoric. I believe that the US military budget should be cut by more than half. Unfortunately, Obama will not do this. Unfortunately, no candidate who would could ever be elected. Obama has repeatedly said that some events, including genocide, are legitimate grounds for US military intervention.

Unlike the neocons, he is unlikely to use military power to achieve regime change in countries who are opponents of US power in the world. (It is sometimes said that the neocons intend to bring freedom and democracy to states now controlled by tyrannical dictators -- but this is definitely NOT their platform, as one can see in from the cynical alliances made with dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan.) Obama has declared that he would open direct negotiations with Iran. He and his advisors have consistently supported US participation in international institutions like the United Nations, and US concerted action with these groups, rather than the contemptuous attitude that John Bolton, Dick Cheney, and others had for international law and institutions.

We had war during the Clinton years, such as the intervention in Bosnia. Obama's foreign policy would be similar to Clinton's. That would be a great improvement. The story that the O'Neill article conveys is certainly not the whole story.

Ref #11: The issues raised in this link probably deserve a separate thread. Perhaps the Legatum study is not far off, as a point in time statement, in ranking the current prosperity of the United States.

But, the Legatum study uses very poor criteria to measure good governance. The measured quantities for good governance were newspaper circulation and the black market premium. According to those two indexes the US is well governed. I think one needs to weigh the rate at which the US is becoming indebted to the rest of the world. Current foreign debt is $14 trillion, which isn't too good. For 2007 alone, the US racked up $800 billion in new foreign debt, equal to 70% of the net savings of the entire rest of the world. I claim that's bad governance.

In the study, the US is also given good grades on capital accumulation. The average household savings per annum is nearing 0, and of course the government is accumulating debt very fast. So, all US capital accumulation is now borrowed from overseas.

These factors mean that current US prosperity indexes will fall sharply in the coming years, unless there is a dramatic change in policy.

It is worth noting that the US grade on health is also much lower than for most western European countries.

#53 The US has the best healthcare and educational systems in the world, and some of the deepest and most interesting culture, and more diverse food choices than anywhere else.

!

Best healthcare and educational systems, if you're lucky enough to be able to afford it! People live longer in a number of other countries--and as for math and science scores, well!!

"Some of" maybe, but as for deepest and most interesting culture and more diverse food choices, my money's on China!

>11 enevada:

That’s fascinating. In addition to the rock bottom ratings for strong marriages and foreign investment, the USA seems to be lagging the leaders by quite a bit in several categories, including equality of opportunity, political and civil liberties, time for leisure, exploiting innovation, and competitive markets.

I don’t understand “alleviates sources of misery via good climate”. The climates of top-rated El Salvador, Bangladesh (!), Philippines, and Singapore don’t strike me as particularly healthy or pleasant. I wouldn’t want to visit, much less live in, in any of those places!

Also, I don’t understand “develops social supports via community life”. They measured the “degree to which people trust others”. In the US they must have been interviewing conservatives, who don’t trust anyone. ;o

Obama and McCain supporters take note: the page titled The American Exception says this:
Americans tend not to elect female political leaders. This latter factor correlates very strongly with societal averages of life satisfaction. So elect Hillary, and be happy!

The Happiness graph is worrisome. That dot in the extreme lower left (most poor and most dissatisfied) is, no surprise to anyone, Zimbabwe. But the one right next to it? Pakistan. Third from the bottom left is Egypt. And Turkey is at bottom center in the “poor and dissatisfied” quadrant.

More good news here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511125873823431.html?mod=opinion_main_comment...

From it:

"First, we can easily dismiss the notion that the poor are getting poorer. All the Census Bureau tells us is that the share of the pie consumed by the poor has been shrinking (to 3.4% in 2006 from 4.1% in 1970). But the "pie" has grown enormously. This year's real GDP of $14 trillion is three times that of 1970. So the absolute size of the slice received by the bottom 20% has increased to $476 billion from $181 billion. Allowing for population growth shows that the average income of people at the bottom of the income distribution has risen 36%.

They're not rich, but they're certainly not poorer. In reality, economic growth has raised incomes across the board."

>58 enevada: enevada

Mark Twain famously said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Therefore, the one thing I hate more than a lie is a misleading statistic.

First, the author of this articles states that "the slice received by the bottom 20% has increased to $476 billion from $181 billion". My question is what are we supposed to infer from this? I think it is really disingenuous for the author to put out statistics and never reasonably interpret what they mean. Any average person would look at these statistics and say: "Damn, well I'll be. I am getting richer!" But it's precisely these kind of numbers (presented without interpretation) which lead to absurd conclusions that actually contradict what is happening in reality.

Look at the last sentence in the paragraph: "the average income of people at the bottom of the income distribution has risen 36%". Hmmm, I wonder if the prices of health care, higher education, gasoline, and other expenses have increased by a meager 36 PERCENT in THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS!!! Probably not.

It is sooo obvious that the argument in this article is based on a straw-man fallacy. The article is, in effect, attacking an argument that is ridiculous. Who in their right mind would argue against this: "They're not rich, but they're certainly not poorer." Well DUH! How can a person ever make the argument that in a country, whose economy is growing at a consistent rate, that the poor are actually getting poorer in terms of the size of the slice of the "pie" that they're getting. That would be an uninformed argument at best.

Let's take a look at some more statistics, shall we? The article claims: "In the process of this social revolution, the average household size has shrunk to 2.57 persons from 3.14 -- a drop of 18%. The meaning? Even a "stagnant" average household income implies a higher standard of living for the average household member."

Besides the fact that this author will only interpret numbers when doing so will help him to continue flogging an argument that noone would ever make in the first place (as stated above), how exactly is the author using the word "implies" in the last sentence? To imply something means to express or indicate indirectly. If the author really means that there is indeed "a higher standard of living for the average household member", then why doesn't he just say it? Well because he can't. He can't really say for sure if households are in fact experiencing a "higher standard of living" he can only suggest and hint at it, ergo, the word implies.

Lastly, the article claims: "More Americans own homes and new cars today than ever before, despite slowdowns in both industries." (This author must think I'm brain dead). Of course more people own homes and new cars than ever before, there are more people in America than ever before. Duh! If the author is so fond of statistics why didn't he cite some here?

He finally concludes by stating, "Laptop computers, iPhones and flat-panel TVs are fast becoming necessities rather than luxury items." This is, by far, the dumbest argument I have ever encountered for why the poor in America are doing better than ever before. In my house I have four tv's, 3 dvd players and two desktop computers. My mother makes $22,900 a year, when she was getting social security for me it was somewhere around $33,000 year (This was in 2007 by the way). How, then, did we get so much stuff, you ask. We got it by accumulating it over time; we're not going on some damn shopping spree like the author would have you believe.

Furthermore, the author's claims are even more outlandish when you consider this. Relative to a poor Zimbabwean I am living the high life. So, yeah I'm not as poor as other people around the world in absolute terms. But, relative to the overall wealth in my society, and given the fact that I can't afford healthcare, a college education, a house, etc. I ain't doin' so well. This argument is a red herring.

Is the author arguing that I shouldn't own any of the aforementioned devices? No, because he knows that to do so would be a stupid claim. If Americans, being the consumers that we are, ever stopped buying s@$*, so that we could save every penny we had in order to afford the things that will actually make our lives better in meaningful and significant ways, then the disparity in wealth would be even more pronounced and we'd really have a class war. But the question still remains: In America, the wealthiest nation on God's green Earth, why should I have to save every penny just to get the stuff I need. Shouldn't I be able to indulge, or should I have to live my life like a squirrel, stuffing my mouth full of nuts so that the winter won't come and take everything I've saved away.

Of course I could go on, and on, but it's 1 a.m., I'm tired, and I have to lead a discussion on pragmatism tomorrow. The next time you wanna cite some statistics enevada, cite some statistics that tell the whole truth and not just part of the truth.

#59: The next time you wanna cite some statistics enevada, cite some statistics that tell the whole truth and not just part of the truth.

And where, pray tell, is that trove of statistics found? The point is, people look for evidence that supports their own argument, their own world view. But in terms of material wealth - all classes of Americans have seen substantial gains. Period.

I think also we should note that the Prosperity Index measures not happiness but prosperity. After doing some reading and thinking on the Gini coefficient (very interesting) and income inequality, it occurs to me: why would income inequality be a measure of prosperity? If you are measuring real values: what do you make, what do you own, and not perceived inequities: what do you think your neighbor makes, owns, etc. – how could income inequality or distribution of wealth be an accurate measure of actual prosperity?

The answer I think is the envy warp. Envy is a multifaceted thing: a socializing principle, an economic force, a theological problem, and a philosophical subject. In this presidential election, I see it being used as a negative strategy by the Democratic candidates – a strategy that I think is faulty because it is largely cynical, and will repulse as many or more voters, than it will attract.

Envy used as a positive force, in an economic sense, is the traditional hallmark of the right: income inequality combined with economic mobility is motivational, and will generate an individual (usually positive) response. Envy used in the negative sense, best personified in John Edwards’ Two Americas idea, is cynical: you don’t have enough, what can we (meaning the government) do about that? It dismisses the individual response, in favor of a collective one, essentially the redistribution of wealth.

For me this is the fault line, so to speak, of the two political parties. To win the general election, a candidate needs to appeal to the moderate center. Obama puts a happy face on what is an essentially a negative political ideology. We’ll see what happens, but my guess is that optimism (and not false hope) will win the day. I very well may be wrong, but in that case, we’ll be facing more pressing concerns.

>60 enevada: and 61 enevada

"And where, pray tell, is that trove of statistics found? The point is, people look for evidence that supports their own argument, their own world view. But in terms of material wealth - all classes of Americans have seen substantial gains. Period."

enevada, you can find statistics all over the internet about how inflation has consistently outpaced people's wages over the last decade. I don't know specifically where this information is, if that's what you're asking, but just because I don't know exactly where they are doesn't mean they don't exist. But more importantly, statistics don't tell stories. Like Stalin said, "A million deaths is a statistic, a single death is a tragedy". So, these 'statistics' can be found in the lives of real people and not in a bunch of calculated numbers.

On the whole, I'm just not willing to accept the author's position that people are somehow delusional, that they are actually better than they think they are in terms of being able to afford the things that should be a bare minimum in this society.

In addition, I agree with you that all classes of people have seen substantial gains in material wealth; noone in their right mind would dispute that. What I am concerned about are costs. You can't just say your material wealth has gone up so you're actually better off than you think you are. You have to take into account whether or not your actual costs are rising as well. Thus, my argument rests on the simple premise that it is possible that what I could afford in 1970 is not the same thing as what I can afford in 2008, even if my actual material wealth increases. This, I think, is undeniably true; and, indeed, I think this is what has actually happened.

Lastly, and I think most importantly, even if you want to cite statistics that support your own argument, you can't do it in a misleading way. You can't just cite statistics to bolster your own argument, even if you know that in fact the whole picture is quite different from the one that you are presenting. And this gets us back to where we started: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Statistics can be so misleading precisely because there seems to be evidence that seems to go against what is actually the case in reality. Like I said, any average Joe would look at those statistics and be convinced that his beliefs were unfounded. Statistics are pernicious in that it appears to be concrete, factual evidence when it may only be misleading numbers.

enevada: "how could income inequality or distribution of wealth be an accurate measure of actual prosperity?"

It's not, income inequality is a measure of income inequality. I think most pundits just like to cite the income disparity to help make their point; but it is a rhetorical move, at best. If Bill Gates is making billions of dollars, but I'm only making a couple thousand, then my questions is: 'Why am I only making a couple thousand dollars?'. To me, atleast, what Bill Gates makes is irrelevant (unless we're talking about disparities that are a result of a denial of justice, but that's another story), the most important question is why can't I make enough to provide for the bare necessities of life?

I have to go to class, so I'll get back to you on your last point about envy.

The point is, people look for evidence that supports their own argument, their own world view.

This would explain quite a bit of LT's forum posting. One wonders, though, if we're molding our choice of evidence to fit our world-view why we bother with the evidence at all.

#63: I love that question, truly - I think we do it for many different reasons, but for me it is a launching point - something that suggests a frame of reference for what is otherwise a completely subjective idea.

It is also something of a Burr puzzle - let's take this piece and put it here - how does that change the structure or validity or value, etc. of the argument?

It encourages thought and thoughtful engagement - that's good enough for me.

But in terms of material wealth - all classes of Americans have seen substantial gains. Period. - enevada

Perhaps this opinion is from a more acceptable wordview:

“In one of the richest, most powerful nations on earth, tens of millions of people lack some of the basic material necessities of life,” the report says. “The existence of such widespread poverty amidst such enormous wealth is a moral and social wound in the soul of this country.”

“The scourge of poverty is getting worse,” it said, noting that 37 million Americans – almost 13 percent of the population – live below the official poverty level, a number that increased by 5.3 million from between 2000 to 2004. It added that 7 million are unemployed and actively seeking work, and that even those who are working at the minimum wage cannot reach above the poverty level. ....

The poverty report pointed to the “growing gap between the haves and have-nots,” citing statistics that indicated the United States “had not seen such extreme inequality since the 1920s.” ....

“There has been a conscious and deliberate retreat from our nation’s commitment to economic justice for those who are poor,” it says. “Poverty remains our nation’s most serious political blind spot and one of our nation’s most profound moral failing,” seen in the faces of infants, children and elderly, urban and rural dwellers, the working poor, those with limited economic opportunity, the homeless, veterans, immigrants and refugees.

From U.S. Poverty Moral Wound to Nation's Soul, Catholic Charities Report Says. See "Poverty in America: A Threat to the Common Good," a 28-page Catholic Charities USA policy paper released 1/10/2007.

According to the federal government, in 2005, a family of four with two children and an annual income less than $9,903 (half the federal poverty line) was considered 'severely poor.' An individual making less than $5,080 a year was also considered 'severely poor.'

Based on 2005 U.S. Census figures (the latest available):

* 43% of the nation's 37 million poor people were pushed into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975

* The percentage of poor Americans living in severe poverty reached a 32-year high

* Nearly 16 million Americans live in deep or severe poverty

* The number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005, 56% faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period

* The median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years

* Nearly two out of three people in severe poverty are white (10.3 million)

Here's some other figures:

* Since 2000, the number of severely poor grew "more than any other segment of the population."
(The Rising Prevalence of Severe Poverty in America: A Growing Threat to Public Health, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 31, Issue 4, pages 332-332, S. Woolf, R. Johnson, H. Geiger)
"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began. ... We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty." (Dr. Steven Woolf, Virginia Commonwealth University, co-author of study)

* In 2006, 7 percent of children under age 18 lived in families in extreme poverty (below 50% of the poverty threshold). (Census data analysis performed by the Child Trends DataBank.)

* The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that, in a given month, only 10% of severely poor Americans received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 2003 (the latest year available) and only 36% received food stamps.

* Over the last two decades, America has had the highest, or near-highest, poverty rates for children, individual adults, and families among 31 developed countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23 year, cross-national project comparing poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations. (http://www.lisproject.org/) According to the study, the U.S. devotes the smallest portion of its GDP to federal anti-poverty programs (with the exception of Mexico and Russia), and those programs are among the least effective at reducing poverty (again with the exception of Russia and Mexico).

#63 - because evidence is like a stick in the forest. It points in one direction.

And another stick points elsewhere.

Both are true sticks.

The direction of the forest is hard to discern from looking at a few sticks.

A "proper" statistical analysis of all the sticks will help. But it's much easier if you know the answer in advance.

> how could income inequality or distribution of wealth be an accurate measure of actual prosperity - enevada

As bigal already noted, it's not. Check out the University of Texas' Inequality Project for helpful explanations and a useful tutorial on understanding poverty.

> And where, pray tell, is that trove of statistics found? - enevada

A 10 minute internet search uncovered the following:

* Data for 2006: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2007, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Detailed Poverty Tables, Table POV03 and POV05.

* Children's Defense Fund, Trends in Child Poverty and Extreme Child Poverty and Defining Poverty and Why It Matters for Children (in particular check out the 2005 comparison between Basic Needs and Annual Costs on page 2)

* U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Related Children by Number of Working Family Members and Family Structure: 2004; Below 100% of Poverty -- All Races, Detailed Poverty Tables (Washington, DC, Bureau of the Census, 08/2005)

* U.S. Census Bureau Report, Poverty in the United States: 2001

* America's Second Harvest, Hunger Study - 2006

* Extreme Poverty Rising, Existing Government Programs Could Do More, Urban Institute, 2002.

* fixed link

Do we need to ask some of the POS people to come in and give a lecture on falsifiability and POS?

#66: I am not making the argument that poverty doesn't exist in this country - which is one of the reasons that I will always support Catholic Charities and other voluntary faith-based charity programs - in addition to giving money, time, and services, our family has benefited greatly from their programs.

It is also interesting to note the Vatican's update on the seven deadly sins, which includes the two extremes: obscene wealth and the creation of poverty as well as contributing to the divide in the distribution of wealth. These are serious, long-standing moral issues - it has never been otherwise.

Some more here, if you are interested:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aizloDFbRPRM&refer=u...

For international stats, both the UN and the World Bank offer extensive on-line databases. The CIA country manuals are also good sources, though usually more out of date.

There's a more interesting underlying question here, which is, what other than income or wealth is a proper measure of prosperity. Certainly, you've got to take account of comparable purchasing power: a US$100,000 income in New York and in Nairobi will lead to radically different standards of living. But there are other equally important issues in determining relative prosperity, though one has to make clear value judgments in determining what they are.

These stats are rife with such value judgments. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as no one claims they are in some way not value-laden because they are statistics.

This is not true i think Obama is the best he has my vote

#72: I do have some familiarity with the World Bank measures, and in general agree with their definition:
“A person is considered poor if his or her consumption or income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs.”

As you note, it would be next to impossible to define the term basic needs in a value-free manner – and, I’m not sure if it would even be helpful. Again, the measure of prosperity is a tricky concept – it would certainly have to figure poverty rates, and relative wealth, but not necessarily inequality – unless, you believe that class envy effects over all well being – in this presidential election I think that the Democrats are advancing, and running on, that argument. The natural Republican counter-argument is to emphasize economic mobility, and individual (not class) determination.

I think that the idea is that the income inequality is causing the increase in the poor. If some of the wealth of the extremely rich were redistributed to the poor there would be less of the poor.

And you didn't address the point that for the last decade at least incomes for the bottom tiers haven't been increasing as fast as costs. Do you dispute that?

There is more than "class envy" at play.

Countries with extreme disparities in income usually have smaller domestic markets. Rich folks disproportionately consume luxury items, poor folks disproportionately consume food - the things that create jobs and economic growth, like house and cars - need a lot of folks in the middle.

Countries with more income inequality also tend to have less ability to support quality public services, ranging from infrastructure like roads and utilities to widespread education and healthcare.

Income inequality causes deep structural divisions within a society that have huge effects on the culture's stability and ability to support further development.

Income inequality is a critical mark of underdevelopment and has a broad impact on the society as a whole.

#75: I wouldn't dispute that, at first glance, although if I had the time I would like to see consumption rates for the same period - which brings us back to the same question, do we measure by income or consumption, or both? I think some economists, Greenspan, for one, would argue "both".

Let us grant for the sake of argument that there are poor people in the United States.

The really interesting question is, why?

Since it is unpleasant to be poor, there is a tendency to assume that people who are poor, are poor because of objective circumstances about which they can do nothing. Because if they could do something about it, they would, poverty being an unpleasant condition to be in.

This assumption is true over much of the world. Most of the inhabitants of Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan ... are poor, and the blame for their poverty lies with their ruling elites, who use their control of the state to prevent the kind of free-market policies which have brought, and are bringing, prosperity to much of the rest of the world.

But is the same true for the United States? What free-market measures are our rulers blocking?

I would love to believe that the American rulers could follow in path of the rulers of China and India, who have begun to dismantle the socialist shackles that have kept their peoples poor for decades ... but I want to know what these shackles are, in the US.

What further measures to advance free trade and open up our economy to the world market, or measures to liberalize our labor-market, or to prevent bureaucratic interference with private enterprise, do the critics want us to take?

> I am not making the argument that poverty doesn't exist in this country - enevada

Agreed. But you did say:

> But in terms of material wealth - all classes of Americans have seen substantial gains. Period.

Your response above indicates that you missed two points: 1. In 2005, the percentage of poor Americans living in severe poverty reached a 32-year high. 2. 43% of our country's 37 million poor people fell into severe poverty (the highest rate since 1975).

While "class envy" may be a pressing concern of WSJ reporters and right-wing politicos, i'd imagine food, safe shelter, and medical care might be more of a concern for families of four living on less than $9,903 per year.

But if you just open your eyes and look around, surely you see people who struggle. i've seen plenty of frighteningly thin children, without a fixed address, whose only stable meal came from the school lunch program. And, at the other end, i've seen seniors with empty cupboards who literally have to choose between buying medicine and eating. You won't find their stories in the Wall Street Journal.

* grammar fix

#79: My interest in envy is philosophical, for a general over-view:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/envy/

Admittedly, this will do nothing to feed poor children - but an understanding of a fundamental issue in egalitarian thought, as well as its practical application in politics and economics, will inform my voting pattern as well as color my outlook on life, for better or worse.

Doug,

Not that I think the free market will solve all issues, assuming people could even agree on what a free market is, but one obvious place where there is an unfree market that affects poverty in the US is immigration.

There are obviously people who are poor in part because it is illegal for them to work here. Removing that restriction on the labor market would, of course, have a salutory effect on poverty.

I am slow in reading this thread, mostly because statistics in the abstract fascinate me, but concrete statistics bore me. (That would be the Augustinian in me, eneveda.)

Poverty is relative. When my wife and lived in Germany as poor graduate students, I had a stipend of 500 marks a month. When we went out to pubs, we had to figure out how many beers we could have in advance. We walked everywhere, or hitched, if we were traveling locally. Buying books was a major purchase, and when the dollar tanked, things just got worse for us. Nonetheless, it was one of the best years of our lives.

However innovations begat neccessity. You don't NEED a computer to survive in today's world, but if you are going to excell at school, it really helps. The schools where my children attend assume high schoolers and college students have their own laptops. We build roads that assume you have a car. Bikes, and even walking is not an option, then we cut back on mass transit. We have drug plans that assume you have a master's degree in medical administration to understand.

It is too easy for those of us who have the advantage of intelligence, education, background, and economic well being to talk about how "anyone can do it."

As to envy, that is a personal virtue, and for me to assume that I need to formulate policies to help you poor people out there deal with your envy is...well fruitless at best, mean at its worst. I may chose a life of simplicity and poverty, but that is MY choice. (I choose not to watch TV for example. I don't need to make sure that government cuts to Public Broadcasting makes my particular choice universal.)

Few of us would be happy if we had to live in the bush in Alaska. (The lack of running water would push most people out of the running. Using an outhouse at -40 is...well I just cannot describe how painful it is when you first sit down.) But people do it, and some really like it. (Bush Alaska is that part of the country which is not on the road system.) No amount of money could make you happy there. You would share the same living conditions as everyone else in the village. No one has running water. But that would not make you happy.

Personally, I don't think charities have the wherewithal to make large changes. Taxes (and here I reveal my truly heretical roots) are not bad. (I get that from the Bible, by the way.) Government is not bad. (I get that from the Bible too.) Governmental programs are not, by definition, incompetent. (No one is suggesting we have a private army--although we are heading in that direction.) Or private courts. Or non-regulated banks. (Seriously, if Bank A were granted a charter that said it was not subject to any government regulation, would you put your money there, even if it offered a higher rate of return than Bank B?)

We have turned the government over to people who apparently think it SHOULD be incompetent, and now we are reaping the rewards for that behavior, but to blame that on "government" is like blaming putting the fox in charge of the henhouse and then blaming "guards" for the loss of chickens.

A friend of mine used to work for the FDA as a lawyer. She was responsible for making sure that drug companies were honest in their advertising. She was frustrated to no end, because her boss, who was in charge of that particular program, believed that government had no right to limit how drug companies advertised their products. (I would not believe ads for any drug that came out between 2000 and 2003, by the way.)

It is time we recognised that government service is a high honor, and we started calling the best and brightest, not to loot it, but to serve their country, and their fellow human beings, through government service.

#78 I’ll take a stab at your question Doug – because I need to follow through on my economic mobility trumps redistributive taxes hypothesis. But, I can’t tackle poverty in total and would like to look at income inequality or wealth disparities.

To minimize the discrepancies we could employ the European model: higher minimum wage earnings, protective trade measures, and high taxation. Each brings a matching drawback: a higher minimum wage would result in lost job opportunities and higher unemployment. Protective trade practices reduce labor market flexibility and hurts productivity. High levels of taxation discourage investment and savings, and increase economic hardship.

So, what else is there? How about progressive taxation along the lines of the Earned-Income-Tax-Credit (EITC) which exempted lower income wage earners from federal income-tax liability? This encourages wage earning and savings and provides the tax break to those most in need.

In addition to applied tax relief, the greatest benefit to the lowest-tier is education opportunities. In our economy of wage inequality, highly skilled and well educated workers reap the reward, as it should be. Entrepreneurship is encouraged and richly rewarded – and requires an educated populace. Merit scholarships and financial reward for deserving and promising students, as well as increased diversity in school choice from elementary education on.

For cases of extreme or chronic poverty (from which I doubt, we’ll ever be free) there is the safety net of housing, food, and medical care. No-one is advocating that we dismantle these programs, although many see alternatives (faith based or otherwise) to governmental largesse. Let's put some of those highly rewarded, clever entrepreneurs on it - I bet some good would come of it.

> ~53-83 The big question is: how can we blame this all on Obama?

#84: We can't, and we won't - but you will admit that there are fundamental differences in the approaches towards poverty and income redistribution, that is, tax policies, in the two parties.

Not everything is reduced to winning elections, all the time - or is it?

78 and 83

You both left out one huge factor in "the shackles of poverty."

Race and racism.

#86: That’s Codyed’s bailiwick. My shift is almost over, he's on evenings as the conservative whipping boy for Pro/Con. Doug is by consultation only these days – at a hefty pre diem, I might add. Not that I'm envious or anything.

87
Wow! There really is a Right-Wing Conspiracy. I had no idea you guys were so connected! ;)

#88: yes, and it is vast: three. Or 2.5, depending on the day and the issue.

I think there are a few more, but far be it from me to kick the beehive...

There are obviously people who are poor in part because it is illegal for them to work here. Removing that restriction on the labor market would, of course, have a salutory effect on poverty.

It will not have a salutary effect on poverty in the United States. With an increase in the supply of labor there will eventually be a decrease the price of labor.

One of the biggest contributing factors in the wealth disparity in the United States is the stubborn prevalence of mass immigration of low skilled workers, which depresses the wages of native born workers (of all races). In Canada, the reverse is true. Since Canada does not share a border with a poverty stricken third-world country, low skilled Canadian workers enjoy little competition from cheap, foreign labor. And since Canada has a policy of importing intelligent, highly skilled immigrants, the high-skilled labor pool in Canada faces stiff competition, thus lowering the gap between rich and poor.

So, in essence, the United States makes the poverty situation worse by a policy of open borders.

I would like to address two points raised thus far.

First, enevada's use of re-framing terms such as "economic mobility" and "class envy". These are euphemisms for concepts that at one point MAY have been reasonable, but have not been so since the mid '70's.

Economic mobility, the ability to move from one rung to another on the economic ladder as used by conservative platitudinists refers to the ability to go up the ladder. In many industries and wage jobs, at present, economic mobility is decidedly down the ladder rather than up. So, when someone uses the term "economic mobility" think down not up.

The same sort of logic invests the term "class envy" and I agree with NativeRoses that deeply poor people do not have the time or the means to be envious of those who have big homes, big cars, big jobs, etc. They don't necessarily envy the wealthy for their wealth, they want to know where they can get on the upside of the economic mobility ladder. The fact is, they can't. They lack either the motivation, the opportunity, or the skills to get on that ladder. Class envy frames the discussion as one group against another, when we should be thinking about how we can help the poor find that ladder.

Class envy is felt more strongly by middle to upper middle class people whose life mission is to surpass the Joneses than it is by the Joneses themselves.

It has always been useful for the right to use the class envy frame because most Americans are opposed to the idea of class. However, as more and more Americans slide down that ladder they will and are thinking more in these terms. Class envy may indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy through the continued rape of the middle class.

As I was writing this, it came to me that "class envy" is also a pat on the back to those people who belong to the top tier of American Society. After all, one of the uglier, but natural character weaknesses is to desire to be envied by others. Maybe I was wrong earlier, maybe we are being pushed into classes by the wealthy. Once a society breaks down into classes, equality under the law is at risk.

I would contend that in terms of measuring prosperity, consumption may be a valid measure. It may also be a valid measure of unhappiness. What are super consumers attempting to achieve? It is my personal experience that if you have the necessities (food, shelter, healthcare) you are more likely to be happier than if you have everything you could ever possibly want. Overconsumption is, on the one hand, a sign of a serious spiritual malaise in this country, as well as evidence that we are a nation that has sold its soul for a mess.

Envy is a sign of unhappiness and it raises its ugly head as the stratification of society becomes more fixed, with fewer opportunities to move up. Separate groups form and envy increases among those on the way down the ladder as their lives are stolen from them by economic systems designed to concentrate wealth at the top, as we have now.

The most unhappy people I know are generally people who want more, not those who don't have enough. The happiest people I know are those to whom life is more than stuff.

When the history of this era is told, the TV is going to come in for some savage treatment. The TV presents fantasy as fact while its goal is to make us believe we will be happy if we can just have that car, or house, or detergent, or thing.

Secondly, in #73, Doug (BTW Welcome back, I was worried that you had left this group altogether.) asks, "What further measures to advance free trade and open up our economy to the world market, or measures to liberalize our labor-market, or to prevent bureaucratic interference with private enterprise, do the critics want us to take?"

The problem with these questions is they feed into the notion that the freer the market the better it will work. Let's consider what happened after we opened up to business the opportunities to farm out major portions of their operations either by importing labor at low wages, stalling wage growth of Americans in the same jobs, usually effected by giving wage increases of 1 or 2 percent while losing slightly to inflation, or, some industries took their BushCo tax breaks which were supposed to provide the trickle down that Reagonomics calls for, and used them to ship jobs overseas to India and China. The Bush tax breaks have been wonderful for India and China, not so much for America.

To answer Doug's question about how to fix the broken free trade system, let the American economy down slowly, and, while we're at it revitalize our manufacturing sector. Let the value of the dollar and wages sink to the level of the Yuan or Rupee, thus making it unprofitable to shift jobs overseas. As the value of the dollar declined, prices would decline accordingly (America's position in the world as Consumer-in-Chief should protect our currency and prices as the dollar drifts downward). The second part of this addresses a very serious problem we have now. The US contributes two things to the world: markets and money. Neither of these things increases overall productivity.

Unless we actually produce something, something no one else can produce with top quality as efficiently and as inexpensively as possible we will decline in importance around the world. What this may be, I don't know, but I'm sure someone has some ideas. Broke, We will be worthless to the world and without a unique niche in the world we will rapidly fall into third world status. Think Zimbabwe. They have nothing, they contribute nothing, and they are being robbed blind by the wealthy.

Geneg, do you think 'class envy' is only used by the right, or do you think it plays out in the economic populism that the Democrats seem to favor?

Class envy is a BS construct of the right used as another means of separating society into those who have and those who don't. The point of this is to set the two groups at one another, raising a smoke screen while the haves continue their rapacious ways.

We are developing a form of de facto class society. If there is "class envy" it is felt by the people who are helplessly sliding out of one class into a lower one. It is this development that makes me say class envy will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

OK, codyed, I'm putting you down as opposed to free market solutions for immigration.

I find that this is one area where many people who otherwise cheer free markets suddenly find they aren't always the best thing. The theory seems to be that free markets always work for beer and brie but never work for labor.

#94: Actually, we agree then that class envy is a false motivator – but I would agree so, because historically the great majority of Americans have shown neither contempt for wealth, nor resentment for those who hold it. That’s why I think it is a dog of an argument to base your campaign rhetoric on, a la John Edwards in particular and the Democrats in general.

enevada, I forgot to address your question about economic populism. It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) populism is an anti-class philosophy. If class is the opposite of classless, then populism must also view the world as class vs. classless or it would not be populism. I am opposed to any view of society that values class based on birth and wealth or position. Whether there are other forms of class (the Hindu caste system, etc.) that may be valuable to society, I don't know. I'm not aware of any.

In any case populists oppose class, but use the rhetoric of class to present their positions. Without arguing the matter on the opponents turf (class as a feature of economic populism for example) the message will be unintelligible. When one side struggles against the other they must be on the same playing field or else it's just two sides arguing to no practical end. Part of making an argument is understanding and addressing your opponents arguments. Republics are intent on creating a class society, while populists are opposed, but in order to connect their arguments to a problem they must both use the same language, in this case the language of class. After all class is the underlying issue. So yes, I agree economic populism uses the language of class, but presents class in a negative light. When the Republics add the word "envy" they seek to cast populists as jealous.

Populists are not jealous, they are seeking justice.

That’s why I think it is a dog of an argument to base your campaign rhetoric on, a la John Edwards in particular and the Democrats in general.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. Getting back to, or close to the original topic, I think that is why Obama's campaign took off while Edward's tanked. As a general rule, you have to have an enemyh to run against, and the rules of engagement are that you paint your opponent in the worst possible light, so that anyone waivering will fall on your side.

But you better chose your enemies carefully. The Rich, in this country are not, and have really never been the percieved enemy, except by the radical left. (The liberal left, for the most part, is already rich.)

I think that on the whole our country is attracted to personal gain, but we have a deeply embedded notion that our gain will not be at any one else's expense. If, by miracle in my case, I do get rich, I don't expect my sudden change in economic status will affect your economic status. Thus, why be resentful of the rich, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE RICH. If they are jerks, that is one thing. But being rich does not make a villain.

Now that is probably only partly true in reality. Some people's wealth is from ill gotten gain, and I think THAT is the bandwagon Edwards jumped upon. He might have been too early. As people learn about excessive profits from insurance companies, or up here in Alaska, as we find Exxon fighting any punitive damages for the oil spill, and BP fighting damages for the recent spill on the North Slope, people may start to put two and two together, to get at one and a half.

But maybe not. We are not a people who hold a grudge. Not as a Nation, anyway.

To paint Edwards' two Americas as the poor against the rich is incorrect. His issue was the legal structures that inhibit opportunity on the one hand while encouraging criminality and immorality in business ethics on the other. He saw a battle between those who had no opportunity versus those who would use any means available including political ineptitude and corruption to aggrandize themselves and their friends. No one (with the exception of the rabid left) wants to see Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, or even Richard Mellon Scaife lose their fortunes, although I gather any number of conservatives would love to see George Soros lose all his money. Is this a kind of class envy? They know they will never have as much class as George. Even I don't wish ill on Scaife. I don't know why it is important to him to have all the money in the world, but it seems to be.

Democrats are not opposed to the moral accumulation of wealth or the wealthy, they just want to share the pie instead of horde it, and if that means that a few will have to stop gorging themselves and share for the benefit of all, including themselves (ask the factory workers in early 1917 Russia what can happen if this opportunity is senselessly withheld), then so be it.

>96 enevada: and 98

I think that the relationship between the average Americans and the wealthiest Americans has always been an ambivalent relationship, at best. I think that you guys are wrong to assume, as codyed does, that "historically the great majority of Americans have shown neither contempt for wealth, nor resentment for those who hold it." This argument, I think, fails to grasp the complexity of the history of economic relations in this country.

When the protestant pilgrims first got here and began to create markets within their own communities the one thing that they feared the most was the sin of great wealth. They really believed that wealth was antithetical to the common good precisely because it allows private interest to influence and subvert the public interests. On the other hand, they also believed that your personhood was inextricably bound up in your ability to be a self-determining agent by owning property. Long story short, they got trapped in an economic paradox: they believed that ownership of property is what made you a human being, but were deeply suspicious of great wealth.

As a result, America has always incorporated some form of protestantism in its economic relationships between the varying classes in America. After reconstruction from 1880-1920 Americans were deeply suspicious of great wealth. Who doesn't remember the incessant debate about trusts and our deep suspicion of corporate capitalism, which was emering around 1900. Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, John Rockefeller, were seen as subverters of the good precisely because they attained great personal wealth, for no apparent benefit for the common good.

The irony in all of this is the great 'American Dream', made concrete in the idea that if we work hard enough that we can become rich to. Thus, American's are deeply suspicious of wealth, while simultaneously indulging in the idea that we want to be wealthy to. What this suggests, as opposed to the one-sided argument that Americans have no contempt toward those who are wealthy, is a long and complex economic relationship between classes.

Moreover, if we translate the debates from 1880-1920 in today's terms we get arguments about government healthcare vs. free market health care, government army vs. private army, etc. The history of capitalism, in America, is one long discussion on the proper way to limit the scope of the commodity form, that is to say, a discourse about what should be bought and sold. We are (espcially the left) deeply suspcious of the idea that people can become wealthy by forcing poor people to buy exorbitant healthcare and even more suspicious of the idea that people could be allowed to make money off of war (that's we don't like Blackwater, Dyncorp, Triple Canopy, even though we recognize that they may be necessary).

On the other hand, we understand that the purpose of a corporation is to make money, ergo, our ambivalent relationship toward the wealthy and corporations.

However, to take the point even further (I'm thinking Nietzsche here) when it comes to power, humans have a tendency to gravitate to that which they despise. This may, in turn, help to give us insight into why Americans, throughout their history, have been suspicious of great wealth while simultaneously holding on to the 'American dream'.

Moreover, I fundamentally disagree that poor people don't have time for contempt. I know that growing up in Newark any time that I was reminded of my poverty was a perfect excuse to hate rich people in-of-itself. Poor people are constantly reminded of their poverty by virtue of their impoverished condition, and any time they contemplate their own poverty the logical question to ask is: why must I be poor while others are so rich? After that, the only thing left to do is to hate the rich, or atleast have contempt for them.

70 > Do we need to ask some of the POS people to come in and give a lecture on falsifiability and POS?

Wiedinmyer, what the heck are you talking about? Platonic objects? (joke) CNFs and proof objectives? You protesting all our sloppy inductions and conjecture/refutations? ;-)