There’s a great post from Noah Smith at Bloomberg View on the situation that middle class Americans have found themselves in. Basically, neoliberalism has not been good to them. Here’s the kernel:
Writer Alex Pareene, in a recent article in Fusion, colorfully describes how vendors of all sorts cashed in on enthusiasm for conservative politicians:
[The conservative era] was a fantastic deal for…companies selling newly patented drugs designed to treat the various conditions of old age, authors of dubious investing newsletters, sellers of survival seeds, hawkers of poorly written conservative books, and a whole array of similar con artists and ethically compromised corporations and financial institutions.
But Pareene’s focus on conservative political appeal is much too narrow. The white middle-class that tended to support leaders like Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush, lost huge percentages of their life’s savings because of excessive fees paid to actively managed mutual funds, financial advisers, stockbrokers, pension fund managers and the like. They also paid 6 percent real estate commissions even as people in most countries paid much less. They rejected the Clintons’ health-care plan in 1993, and ended up paying double what people in other countries pay for comparable treatment. They forked over more and more money in college tuition. They paid higher prices to companies that went on to monopolize markets after spending millions convincing the government to allow their megamergers. The spectacular rise of U.S. wealth inequality shows that trillions of dollars in middle-class assets were shifted up the socio-economic ladder into the hands of a relatively small and fantastically rich upper tier.
Each of these little free-market failures was another slice off of the ham that was the wealth of the American middle class. The people who thought they were going to be the guests of honor at the feast ended up being the main course.
There’s a quip attributed to many but is probably a bit of commonplace wisdom among poker players going back many, many years. If you look around the table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.
There are hundreds or thousands of plans for improving the world that all begin with taxing “the rich” or having somebody else pay the tab. Americans, particularly middle class Americans, have fallen for these plans hook, line, and sinker.
“The rich” aren’t going to pay the tab. The other guy isn’t going to pay the tab. You’re going to be stuck with it.
I hate to break the news to everybody, but this “wealth” was created through the financial system using fractional reserve lending. Those who provide the “fraction” will profit from it, and reducing the “fraction” produces less wealth to be distributed.
In a financialized economy, you make money by “making” money. There is no way to distribute the wealth. Credit backed money does not function like any other commodity. A barrel of oil cannot be lent out to create another barrel. It does not matter what is on an accounting ledger. A single barrel of oil can only be used once, and then, the ledger is pointless.
Also, using “virtual” barrels of oil as a currency will not produce any additional refined products.
(For those on the slow side, the quotation marks are used for words that are being used to represent concepts that are different than their common usage.)
A little off-topic but somewhat pertinent tweet from Matthew Yglesias:
“Mercers vs. Gary Cohn in a battle to see if hedge funds or investment banks will control the soul of the populist rebellion.”
A financialized economy goes hand in hand with a rather politically passive population, perhaps Camille Paglia would not even object to
calling it “feminized.”
So yes the rich aren’t paying.
Free market failures? Middle class fleecing?
Let’s first deal with the elephant in the room as far as the middle class is concerned. Manufacturing employment from heyday to current has fallen from 1 in 10 in the total population to 1/26. It peaked in the mid 60s. Government workers have risen from 1 in 28 to 1/14. In absolute numbers 5mm to 22mm. (Flat at 12.5 for manufacturing, with a 16-17 peak). This rotation has also been accompanied by the currnt and emerging pension crises and government insolvency. And who is paying, and will pay, the freight? The rich and non-government worker middle classes. It’s been a relatively good deal to work for the government or have government influence. Not so much for a machinist.
Monopoly? If you produce sugar, banking or medical services, sure. Government granted monopoly. Otherwise competition is fierce.
Dubious newsletters, or survivalist products? If you are buying those, put a dunce cap on. Of course if you believe in government pension, health care and job creation efforts. Put a dunce cap on.
We could debate investment commissions all day. But if you think that’s really how the middle class gets fleeced, put a dunce cap and on. People lose investment value because of emotion, buying into peaks and selling in despair. It’s a well worn subject. It’s not 1% fees. And if you don’t want to pay fees, Vanguard has great products. Call them up. Housing values? Heh. Talk government induced bubbles and granted monopolies, not free markets. I bought my last two homes on direct approach.
Government has been the mechanism for so much wealth transfer anyone advocating more or pointing fingers elsewhere should probably be convicted of fraud, and issued a dunce cap. The article was just a transparent hit piece devoid of almost any facts or perspective.
Maybe that’s why I like fish. The losers are just eaten without spending 20 years in the corner with a dunce cap on.
Citation Drew. It looks to me like the total number of government workers, as a percentage, has fallen. The percentage employed by the federal government has taken a big drop. If there has been any growth at all, it has been in local government.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/09/the-percent-of-employed-people-working-for-the-federal-government-is-at-the-lowest-level-on-record/?utm_term=.2520673b68d4
Steve
If you fire all of your employees and replace them with full time contractors, have you reduced the size of your workforce? Or are you paying more for the same workforce?