Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 24, 2014

Thomas E. Ricks, Politico: This is unexpected. In my late 50s, at a time of life when most people are supposed to be drifting into a cautious conservatism, I am surprised to find myself moving steadily leftward. ... I am puzzled by this late-middle-age politicization. I wonder whether others of my generation are similarly pausing, poking up their heads from their workplaces and wondering just what happened to this country over the last 15 years, and what do to about it. Mentally, I was a detached centrist. Today I remain oriented to the free market and in favor of a strong national defense, so I have hardly become a radical socialist. But since leaving newspapers, I have again and again found myself shifting to the left in major areas such as foreign policy and domestic economic policy.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

One of his reasons: "Democracy for sale. The wealthy, abetted by the most out-of-touch Supreme Court in many decades, also have been permitted to purchase an outsized voice in American politics. I am a First Amendment fundamentalist, and I do not think there should be many restrictions on what individuals do and say in the realm of politics. Yet I do not think that corporations are people, or that they should enjoy the full array of rights bestowed by the founding fathers on American citizens. But because of a series of disastrous Court rulings in recent years, that

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The things that are pushed me leftward began with the experience of closely watching our national security establishment for decades. But they don't end there. They are, in roughly chronological order:

*Disappointment in the American government over the last 10 years.

*Torture. I never expected my country to endorse torture.

*How we fought (in Afghanistan and Iraq).

*Intelligence officials run amok.

*Growing income inequality.

*Bailouts for bankers.

*Democracy for sale.

*Gun massacres.

This has all made me shift my thinking, not so much about partisan politics but in feeling a sense of disquiet about both major political parties -- and about our entire system. I suspect there are others who feel the same way.


Great read and sober synopsis of the last decade plus of America's journey down a far different road than we've previously traveled. I certainly hope that Ricks and those he mentions in the article are the beginning of a new wave of change from the rear that might bring us back to the principles and ideals this nation used to hold dear since it's inception. America has never been perfect and it never will be. But it can return to being a far more fair and forgiving society than it's evolved into being over the last couple of decades.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-24 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Thomas E. Ricks: Why Am I Moving Left?"

due to early onset dementia caused by to many tsa approved millimeter scans and god-awful mass media exposure, you have had a cerebral hemorrhage and the right half of your body has been completely paralyzed.

don't worry though, the democrats will do all they can to make sure the other side is soon paralyzed just like the right. after that you'll feel...uh... not dead, but almost normal!

#2 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-07-24 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

An important and sad read for any moderate.

On the national level we are no longer welcome in one party and at times only tolerated in the other.

#3 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-24 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Disappointment in the American government - I thought that invading Afghanistan was the right response to the 9/11 attacks, but I never expected the U.S. military leadership would be so inept in fighting there and in Iraq, running the wars in ways that made more enemies than were stopped.

If Sen. Clinton is the nominee, how can you "move left" by voting for her?

Torture. I never expected my country to endorse torture.

I'd hardly consider this moving left. There are plenty on the right opposed to torture.

How we fought.

Everyone loves contractors. Did their role expand under Obama? Yes. Will they go away if Sen. Clinton becomes President? Of course not. Yet, "moving left" is the solution.

Growing income inequality - I also have been dismayed by the transfer of massive amounts of wealth to the richest people in the country, a policy supported over the last 35 years by successive administrations of both parties. Why are you moving left? How are you moving left?

Bailouts for bankers. Did something happen on the left that I don't know about...you know, aside from Senator Warren's ascendance? (who won't get in the way of Sen. Clinton) How are you moving left? I know that banks got away with fraudclosure with a slap on the wrist under a Dem administration, so how is moving left going to solve these problems?

This type of braindead thinking is the problem with American politics.

#4 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-07-24 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#4 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake

While there are still some stark differences, especially on social issues, Ben has pointed out several ways that some democrats are no longer part of "the left"... Ways that some democrats have started acting like "the right".

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-24 07:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Growing income inequality.

Am I the only one that recognizes the correlation between more government insertion into the economy and more inequality?

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-24 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

how is moving left going to solve these problems?

#4 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake

Because the left is LESS WRONG than the right on them.

Wall street justice, torture, war, income inequality... sure many on the right are concerned about them, but many more on the left are.

At least we have elizabeth warren.

The problem is our election funding system of having to beg for money from the rich and corporate interests means you can't govern in a liberal way. The left's VOTERS want what this man wants, but their REPRESENTATIVES can't govern that way under our legalized bribery election system.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-24 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Am I the only one that recognizes the correlation between more government insertion into the economy and more inequality?

As far as tax laws and the rightwing war on workers go, you are absolutely right.

#8 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-24 08:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Am I the only one that recognizes the correlation between more government insertion into the economy and more inequality?"

More government insertion into the economy? Riiight!
It was much less government insertion into the economy, lower tax rates, less regulation, etc. that brought about so much income inequality.
How much income inequality do you think there would be right now if we still had the pre-Reagan top tax rates of 74%?

#9 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

How much income inequality do you think there would be right now if we still had the pre-Reagan top tax rates of 74%?

It would hardly make a difference as there were tax loopholes you could drive a truck through.

#10 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-07-24 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I anticipate calls for more federal intervention, especially in areas where the public good is suffering, such as transportation and the cost of higher education.

We may yet see a leftish generation of senior citizens, a group of aging Baby Boomers who can make common cause with a squeezed middle class and a generation of millennials whose careers have been damaged by the Great Recession while the top 1 percent have grown even wealthier.

If so, we can hope that our new Gilded Age will lead, as the last one did, to a new era of Progressivism when reform and reinvention take hold to restore a democracy gone complacent."

Parties. Not the same.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-24 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#10

They were upwards of 91 percent over 400K for decades up until 1963, with lots of deductions, yes, but nothing like the scams 1 percenters have today.

www.ntu.org

Conservative economist Ben Stein knows what the level of taxes has to do with the level of economic activity...nada.

www.youtube.com

He may also be moving "Left" in other ways, lol....

blog.sfgate.com

.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-24 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

......if we still had the pre-Reagan top tax rates of 74%?

Oh dear lord, you have been put out to pasture so many times over that meme its not even funny anymore.

#13 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-07-24 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are zero liberals in politics.

There are moderate conservatives known as democrats.

And completely whacko bird conservatives known as republicans.

Carry on.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-24 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

......if we still had the pre-Reagan top tax rates of 74%?

Oh dear lord, you have been put out to pasture so many times over that meme its not even funny anymore.
#13 | POSTED BY DANIEL AT 2014-07-24 09:15 PM | FLAG:

It's not a meme dumby.

Look it up.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-07-24 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It would hardly make a difference as there were tax loopholes you could drive a truck through."

Fortunately, I'm old enough to remember. Companies NEEDED to spend as much as possible at the end of the year to avoid as much tax as possible. I earned exactly twice as much then as I do today doing the exact same job. You can pretend all you want but the fact is, our tax policies have made it beneficial for owners to put the profits in their pockets instead of investing it into their companies as they did before the introduction of Reaganomics (Thatcheromics) which was the basis for the destruction of our middle class which Ronald REagan both understood and wanted to do (as long as he was actually coherent).

#16 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

There are zero liberals in politics.

There are moderate conservatives known as democrats.

And completely whacko bird conservatives known as republicans.

Carry on.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack

There's still Bernie Sanders.

#17 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-24 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It would hardly make a difference as there were tax loopholes you could drive a truck through."

But what were those tax loopholes? Buying new equipment, higher labor costs, etc. And yes, you're right, American businesses took advantage of those "loop holes." Yes the mantra was, "I'd rather give it to the employees or buy new equipment than give it to Uncle Sam. With the reduction in the tax rate we also reduced the encentive to reward the employees or to buy new equipment.
It's basic economics but conservatives prefer to believe in Reaganomics instead of Economics.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni,

The economy sucks. YOUR ideology is in charge. YALL are the reason it sucks. At this point, ANYTHING other than progressivism is better.

Deal with it.

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-24 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

And there's E. Warren.

And quite few like both her and Sanders in the House and the state governments, maybe a few in the Senate.

They will all get behind a Dem who can win the executive office and get their districts at least some of the policies they want and deserve.

Unless far lefties join with the rwingers and make a Dem who can win into one who could have.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-24 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni,
The economy sucks. YOUR ideology is in charge. Y'ALL are the reason it sucks. At this point, ANYTHING other than progressivism is better."

So dumb, so disconnected from reality. And thus, and I am sorry to say this because I know BOAZ is a vet and I respect his service, so stupid.

Boaz, your post is completely disconnected from the actual facts about our economy, that's just sad.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And quite few like both her and Sanders in the House and the state governments, maybe a few in the Senate. "

But I still want Sanders to run for President, I want him to be in the debates, I want him to force Hillary to come out as a real liberal. I think she is a liberal but I think we need Bernie to force her to really admit it. She's so focused on the "middle", she will lose focusing on the "middle." Either she stands up with us on the realistic left or she is toast.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The economy sucks. YOUR ideology is in charge. YALL are the reason it sucks. At this point, ANYTHING other than progressivism is better.

Deal with it.

#19 | Posted by boaz

The economy sucks because of reaganomics - take care of the rich first, and hope they take care of everyone else. Problem is, they don't. They hoarde and hide the nation's wealth, despite having used the nation's resources to get it.

The deficit? That is the bill for reagan's tax cuts, finally come due.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-24 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The economy sucks. YOUR ideology is in charge. YALL are the reason it sucks. At this point, ANYTHING other than progressivism is better.

Deal with it.

Posted by boaz at 2014-07-24 09:37 PM | Reply

That's a whole lot of gasbagery. It wasn't progressiveism that lowered taxes during two wars it wasn't progressives that screwed up the economy. That's Conservationism. Kansas is prime example of this.

#24 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-24 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The economy sucks. YOUR ideology is in charge. YALL are the reason it sucks."

That is what they are selling to the stupid. Understand it, don't avoid it. We need our argument to directly contradict their party's talking points.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is so much retardedness on this thread I'd love to drop a bomb on it.

Partisanship crap from both sides.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-24 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Am I the only one that recognizes the correlation between more government insertion into the economy and more inequality?
#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2014-07-24 07:32 PM | FLAG:

Apples to oranges, or did you miss history class about the gilded age?

#27 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-07-24 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Apples to oranges, or did you miss history class about the gilded age?

#27 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-07-24 10:37 PMFlag:

JeffJ Fails to remember things like the Triangle shirtwaist factory or the Andrew Carnegie steel and on and on. More inequality before Government intervention than afterwards.

#28 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-24 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

take care of the rich first, and hope they take care of everyone else.
#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

In Reagan's defense, he did have Alzheimer's.
One wonders what excuses the current crop of right-wingers can muster up.
Perhaps they've simply giving up caring, like the 47% Mitt Romney didn't care about.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 11:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess it's not too surprising that so many who decry partisanship easily find it within Ricks' words. His conversion isn't from a Republican to a Democrat, it's from a conservative towards a progressive. He says so in his own words. We have to stop kidding ourselves into the false belief that choice doesn't matter because it does now more than ever.

The only reason we have the government we do is because the majority of us that know better allow it. It's on us because we don't have the guts to force our politicians to abide by decency and law while we turn into Pavlov's dogs whenever they use whatever's conveniently at hand to scare us into submission. We're scared because 9/11 happened. We're scared because desperate immigrants overwhelm our borders in search of a better life. We're scared about what we do and what we don't do in the Middle East, a place that every single rational person knows is completely uncontrollable and liable to explode at any second in scores of different places. We're scared enough that we let our government put pretty words to obfuscate the fact we torture people and deny them legal rights because why? We're scared that our nation continues to become more and more diverse and the Andy Griffith/Father Know Best America we deluded ourselves into believing was real is never coming back even when the half/black-half/white President leaves the White House.

Ricks is moving leftward because its impossible for many with consciences to not see just how wrong the current right is. Democratic politicians may have tried to justify the votes and positions, but not the left. Does the left compromise? Of course, everyone should in a vigorous democracy, but every side should cede to reality, especially when your policies and beliefs have been proven both historically wrong and a concurrent poison within the body politic infecting everything it touches. All of us know what is right and what is wrong, or at least we used to. Our government used to exist to further the liberty, freedom and dreams of the people who empower it. In many ways its turned into the servant of a relative few who have tremendous wealth and have turned the law into a weapon against the people, not an ally for the people. Perhaps this is Ricks' greatest statement as noted above. And we can change it if that is truly what the majority wants for it is without question what the left has wanted all along without caveat. Its on us, and it always has been.

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-25 12:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Seems to me like he's staying put, and it's the GOP that's moving right. Consistently, over decades.

Remember the GOP primary when they had the show of hands on which candidates believe in evolution?

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

With the reduction in the tax rate we also reduced the encentive to reward the employees or to buy new equipment.

#18 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-07-24 09:36 PM | FLAG:

New employees are hired all the time. New equipment is bought all the time.

Just not in America.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-25 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Am I the only one that recognizes the correlation between more government insertion into the economy and more inequality?"

Income inequality?

It's greatest in the top 1%. Does the top earner in the top 1% have a moral obligation to share his wealth the lowest income earner in the top 1%?

I for one, would rather be the poorest guy making $50k a year in a country where the richest person made $5B, than be the poorest guy making $500 in a country where the richest person made $20k.

Income inequality is a stupid concept. It speaks volumes about those who hitch their horse to it.

"How much income inequality do you think there would be right now if we still had the pre-Reagan top tax rates of 74%?"

You mean back in the days when the income tax on the lowest bracket was 23%? After all, tax brackets on the lowest bracket are as low as they have ever been. Time to jack them up?

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of these revenues went to national defense. Something that taxpayers willing to eat. I'm not so sure that taxpayer would be as willing to fund a Democrat party vote-buying initiative.

"I earned exactly twice as much then as I do today doing the exact same job."

I'm confortable making the claim that there was far less competition then. The rational reason for investing in a company is to accrue more profit. Otherwise, there's no reason. And the increase in middle class wages in the postwar period is due almost solely to the fact that the US was the only industrialized country still making stuff.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-25 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The deficit? That is the bill for reagan's tax cuts, finally come due."

Really?

So it had nothing to do with the multi-megaton explosion of entitlement costs? Those were all budget neutral?

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-25 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm confortable making the claim that there was far less competition then.
#33 | Posted by madbomber

Of course you are.
You're also comfortable making the opposite claim to explain why CEO pay has gone up an order of magnitude more than Danni's pay has gone down.
It's almost like you have this one theory which explains everything...
One thing you probably can't explain: Why economists and policy makers aren't beating a path to your door, seeing as you have it all figured out.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I earned exactly twice as much then as I do today doing the exact same job"

well, you weren't blogging 35 hours a week back then, were you?

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-25 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're also comfortable making the opposite claim to explain why CEO pay has gone up an order of magnitude more than Danni's pay has gone down."

CEOs, Professional Athletes, coaches, managers, musicians, doctors, lawyers, and many other professionals. As competition increases, so do wages.

"One thing you probably can't explain: Why economists and policy makers aren't beating a path to your door, seeing as you have it all figured out."

Beating a path to my door? I'm not the economist. I'm only parroting those that are.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-25 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really, there's an actual economist who explains the rise in CEO pay as a supply-and-demand thing?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Really, there's an actual economist who explains the rise in CEO pay as a supply-and-demand thing?"

There's a whole magazine of economic journalists, known as "The Economist," that published a study on why companies pay so much for CEOs. Basically for the same reason that athletic clubs pay lots of money for top talent-because there aren't very many of them relative to the number of positions to be filled. And from a practical perspective, spending a few million a year on the CEO who has demonstrated the potential to take the firm in the desired direction isn't that big a deal if you're a multibillion dollar company.

If you're interested I'll see if I can't track the article down. The problem with The Economist's content is that most of the archived content requires a premium subscription. I let mine lapse.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-25 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

That sounds exactly like the sort of non-peer-reviewed wealth apology The Economist would publish and you would buy into.

You really think competent CEOs are an order of magnitude more scarce today than they were a few decades ago?

Take the raise in top sports star pay, you think star athletes are a more rare commodity today than in past decades? They aren't. If anything, with performance enhancing drugs, there are more of them. Teams can pay players more today because the teams have more income more today.

Roger Clemens god paid 15 times what Nolan Ryan did, but he isn't a 15x better pitcher than Nolan Ryan. Statistically he might not even be as good as Ryan. Clemens simply played at a time when the clubs can pay a lot more. So it is for today's CEOs.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You really think competent CEOs are an order of magnitude more scarce today than they were a few decades ago?"

Yes. First, starting the 1980s there was a massive increase in the number of new enterprises, mostly as a result of the tech boom and deregulation. At the same time global competition was increasing, meaning that CEOs actually had to know what they were doing and be good at their jobs. In 1950 it would probably work out for a business owner to let his kids run the company. That's not the case today.

"So it is for today's CEOs."

That's true. And again, if you're a company with billions in assets, it's probably not a big deal to spend a few million more on the CEO who you think it going to have the most profound impact on the company. And in reality, most of the huge payouts come in the form of restricted stock. The company has to meet a certain benchmark in order for that income to be realized.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-25 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Roger Clemens god paid 15 times what Nolan Ryan did, but he isn't a 15x better pitcher than Nolan Ryan."

It doesn't really matter. Clemens might only be a few points better than Ryan, but if he's the best, he's going to be in higher demand, and earn more money. And that's basically what the point of the Economist article was. That in the very limited labor pool for CEOs, competition was very intense, and companies would easily get into "bidding wars" in order to procure top talent. Just like professional athletics.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-25 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And from a practical perspective, spending a few million a year on the CEO who has demonstrated the potential to take the firm in the desired direction isn't that big a deal if you're a multibillion dollar company. "

Which has been, as Microsoft has just announced, it involves laying off thousands of employees. It's sort of easy to see what constitutes a great CEO today, not an innovator, just some ------- willing to give thousands of people pink slips. Hell, I could do their job but I wouldn't, not even for the millions they collect.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-25 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

That in the very limited labor pool for CEOs, competition was very intense, and companies would easily get into "bidding wars" in order to procure top talent. Just like professional athletics.
#42 | Posted by madbomber

Clemens and Ryan were both "as good as it gets" when it came to pitchers in their respective eras.
Clemens earned 15x more because there was more money to pay him. Not because he was 15x better than Ryan.
So it is with today's CEOs. They're not any better than their predecessors. They just get paid more. The supply and demand curves haven't moved at all.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

If anything, the supply of baseball players has increased a bit with more players coming over from Asia. With a steady 30 teams in the league, the demand doesn't have much room to move, as we'll never need more than a few thousand professional ball players, farm teams included. So how can it be that Clemens earned 15x more than Ryan? Supply and demand can't explain it.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

en.wikipedia.org

Supply and Demand
Other markets

The model of supply and demand also applies to various specialty markets.

The model is commonly applied to wages, in the market for labor. The typical roles of supplier and demander are reversed. The suppliers are individuals, who try to sell their labor for the highest price. The demanders of labor are businesses, which try to buy the type of labor they need at the lowest price. The equilibrium price for a certain type of labor is the wage rate.[5]

A number of economists (for example Pierangelo Garegnani,[6] Robert L. Vienneau,[7] and Arrigo Opocher & Ian Steedman[8]), building on the work of Piero Sraffa, argue that this model of the labor market, even given all its assumptions, is logically incoherent. Michael Anyadike-Danes and Wyne Godley[9] argue, based on simulation results, that little of the empirical work done with the textbook model constitutes a potentially falsifying test, and, consequently, empirical evidence hardly exists for that model.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Check your stats snoofy. Clemens career was later by 20 years and he still didn't earn 15 times more

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-25 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eberly, en.wikipedia.org
"List of highest paid MLB players"
Nolan Ryan average salary $1.1M
Roger Clemens avg salary $15.5M

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I took their total career earnings. Also Nolan Ryan was a rookie 20 years before Clemens

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-26 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with The Economist's content is that most of the archived content requires a premium subscription. I let mine lapse.

#39 | Posted by madbomber

Did THE ECONOMIST ever write any articles about what happens to a society when wealth inequality becomes too great?

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-26 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Did THE ECONOMIST ever write any articles about what happens to a society when wealth inequality becomes too great?"

Not to my knowledge. But then again I don't know that we have any evidence as to what happens when wealth inequality becomes too great.

Again, the lowest income earner in the top 1% does not appear to be too upset that there is a huge disparity between him and the highest income earner in the top 1%

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-26 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#45

Don't know much aboot baseball, but let's look at the NBA. The lowest paid player is Cory Jefferson of the Nets, at $507,336. The highest paid player is Kobe Bryant, at $23,500,000. So one peer is making 46 times as much as another. I'm assuming that your position on the difference in pay would be collusion or conspiracy, no?

And what do you think they pay the guys who mop the floor after the game, or sell concessions, or sweep the parking lot. I'm going to make an educated guess that it's far less than the lowest rostered player.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-26 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since it's published, the highest paid player in MLB is Zack Grienke, with a $28M contract for 2014. The lowest paid player earns $500k. I'm guessing that's the league minimum (stupid concept). ZG earns 56 times more than the lowest paid player. More conspiracy?

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-26 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not to my knowledge. But then again I don't know that we have any evidence as to what happens when wealth inequality becomes too great.

#51 | Posted by madbomber

We do have plenty of evidence. But ignoring history is what conservatives do best.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-26 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm assuming that your position on the difference in pay would be collusion or conspiracy, no?

What on earth led you to that conclusion?
Hit the bottle early today perchance?
You're not even on topic.

And what do you think they pay the guys who mop the floor after the game, or sell concessions, or sweep the parking lot. I'm going to make an educated guess that it's far less than the lowest rostered player.
#52 | Posted by madbomber

Do you think the guys who mop the floor get paid fifteen times what they did a few decades ago? No? So explain why a CEO does get paid fifteen times more. Are the skills required to be a CEO fifteen times more scarce than they were a few decades ago? Were the skills Roger Clemens had fifteen times more scarce in his era compared to the skills Nolan Ryan had in his era?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-26 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We do have plenty of evidence. But ignoring history is what conservatives do best."

Might I compel you to share some of that evidence?

"Do you think the guys who mop the floor get paid fifteen times what they did a few decades ago? No? So explain why a CEO does get paid fifteen times more. Are the skills required to be a CEO fifteen times more scarce than they were a few decades ago?"

I already did, you just weren't paying attention. The massive explosion in multibillion dollar enterprises has created massive increases in demand for top management. As for the guy that mops the floor? Elon Musk can do that. Jack Welch can do that. You can do that. I can do that. A dude who just quit highschool can do that. Meaning there is an almost infinite pool of floor moppers.

But why would you pay elon Musk to mop a floor? Wouldn't his talents be better served elsewhere?

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-26 11:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Might I compel you to share some of that evidence?

#56 | Posted by madbomber

Look what the New Deal did to rebuild the country. EVIDENCE that massive government programs INVESTING in the future is a good idea.

Look at what 30 years of reaganomics did to the country and the debt. EVIDENCE that catering to the rich hurts everyone else.

Look at how Germany works - EVIDENCE that national healthcare and capitalism can co-exist for the public good.

I could go on all day but you won't listen because repubs are immune to evidence.

#57 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-27 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort