|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 15:45:52 GMT -6
(by LC)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 15:46:51 GMT -6
My definition of "Populism" refers mainly to economic factors. My own brand of "populism" favors "free markets" with government intervention when those markets become become "un-free" due to monopolistic or oligopolistic control. Market control by one or a few large entities is no one's idea of a "free" market. This view is completely consistent with the writings of libertarian Adam Smith. Furthermore, the "freedom" of Corporations to lobby Congress for more government handouts (i.e., Corporate Welfare) is not a "free market" either. In fact, it's Corporate Fascism or, as others might describe it, "Corporate Socialism." Legislation designed to protect Corporate America and Big Business from competition is not consistent with "free markets," and as such, I oppose such legislation. My brand of "populism" entails aggressive "protectionism." This country's industrial might was built under aggressive protectionist policies. In the past, protectionism protected Corporate America and Big Business, as well as American workers. However, current "free trade" policies are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are designed specifically to allow Corporate America to substitute cheap foreign labor for American labor. All other alleged justifications are lies. There is no slightest interest in "opening up markets" in foreign countries to American goods. That's simply a well-propagandized lie. The world's major consumer market it the U.S. market. Corporate America is not concerned with its ability to sell American goods to 3rd world countries. They don't have the income to purchase significant amounts of American goods. Their workers lack the income to create a significant consumer market. The real reason for advocacy of "free trade" is more devious and sinister. The real purpose is to remove tariffs on goods imported into the United States, so that Corporate America can set up production facilities in 3rd world countries using cheap labor, and then export those slave labor-produced goods back into the United States without paying tariffs. This is the only reason Corporate America favors "free trade" agreements--to save labor costs on goods they can re-sell in the United States. The evidence for this motivation can be seen from 1 consistent policy pushed by Corporate America if ALL free trade deals. They routinely fight to ensure there are NO labor protections or minimum wage laws. In fact, they oppose these restrictions, even when the involved foreign country wishes to have such labor protections. But Corporate America always opposes them, as it would reduce the profits they can make from labor arbitrage. The next big tenet of my brand of "populism" is reducing illegal immigration. Illegal immigration increases the American labor force size, and hence, increases the "supply" of labor. The increased supply of labor decreases the "price" of labor, just as an excessive supply of a consumer good decreases the price of that good. In the case of labor, that "price" is American worker wages. I also advocate reducing the multiple foreign worker visas, such as H1B visas. Again, the importation of labor in specific fields drives down the wages of everyone in that field, whether it's farm workers or IT workers. The needs of 143 million American workers need to come ahead of those of Corporate America. Furthermore, there is no shortage of workers in ANY field. There is simply a shortage of employers willing to pay what the "free market" for labor would dictate. As is usually the case, the quasi-"free market" advocates of Corporate America oppose the free market when it works against them. Overall, I believe we should reduce immigration, as it increases our labor supply and reduces American wages as a result. I would freeze, or even reduce current H1B visa levels. I would reduce illegal immigration by aggressively prosecuting employers who hire illegal immigrants. We need to do everything possible to increase American wages, including reducing the oversupply of workers (through immigration) and by preserving the demand for American workers (by reducing job outsourcing to foreign countries.) I believe the tax burden should be shifted on to those whose income reduction will cause the least damage to our economy. At the current time, with business and Corporate America "awash in cash" as the Wall Street Journal describes it, I would shift the tax burden upward. The tax cuts on the top 1% should be completely repealed. Not only have they not helped the economy, they've actually harmed it by allowing for extensive foreign investment, with the migration of American jobs to those foreign countries where the investment has gone. Worse still, the high-end tax cuts have fueled inflation, by forcing the government to borrow increasingly more money to finance operations. That inflation has reduced the real income of American workers and consumers. This inflation has reduced the ability of American consumers to finance goods purchasing with their wages. However, the reduced purchasing power that would have resulted from wage decline has been supplemented by increased borrowing ability. Needless to say, maintaining consumer spending through increased borrowing is not a sustainable course. Rolling back the tax cuts on the top 1% would help at least some with declining real wages. It would reduce inflation, increasing the buying power of the current dollar wages of workers. In order to bolster the aggregate disposable income of consumers, I would raise the level of the Earned Income Tax credit. I would raise the level of minimum income necessary to pay income tax. I would increase the minimum wage to at least $7/hour. All of these measures would put money in the hands of people most likely to spend it, and most likely to help our economy. I advocate restoring the power of labor unions. Labor unions have been major facilitators of increased worker wages. The decline in real American wages has born a strong connection to the decline in real wages of American workers. Forcing employers to negotiate with unions will drive up the wages of American workers. The need for an increasing in aggregate labor/consumer income may not be apparent to some. However, this need can be easily summarized from some basic statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For the year 2005, inflation-adjusted disposable personal income for all Americans increased only 1.17%. Meanwhile, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP increased 3.2%. Since consumer spending is 2/3 of all economic activity, and has historically been less than disposable personal income, income should increase at at least the rate of GDP growth. Since consumer spending is the driving force behind our economy, it needs to increase at near the rate of GDP growth. In fact, it has increased at an even greater rate. However, unlike any year since the Great Depression, consumer spending has exceeded disposable consumer income. This can only occur if borrowed money fills the gap between income and spending. And that's exactly what's happened. This is an indisputable point, and can be seen from the chart from the BEA shown below. It's clear from this information that the biggest threat to our economy is a loss of consumer spending and the production demand it creates. Since 2001, this has been maintained by ever increasing levels of borrowing in the face of declining consumer income. In this case, however, we definitely can not "stay the course." Consumer income needs to increase, or the current course will lead us right off the cliff. This is not a full definition of "populism." But it defines as least some of my own populist economic views. In my opinion, the views I've posted are the core of a "populist" economic policy, as well as the reasons for advocating it.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 15:50:39 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 15:53:07 GMT -6
LC,
It was my attempt to provide some practical, tangible tenets of what would be included in a populist economic policy. In other words, my suggestions were supposed to be general government policy suggestions as to how to serve the best interests of a "populist" economic cause. I wasn't attempting a philosophical definition. Instead I was suggesting practical and potentially implementable policies.
I do believe, however, that a philosophical statement includes a system that provides for the most economic wellbeing for the largest number of people. This is in contrast to one that promotes simple equality. I don't think simple equality is desirable if everyone is poor, even if they are all equally poor.
I think it serves the best interests of the people for an economy to be optimally productive. It is "productive" for the economy if workers receive a decent wage, as they are the primary consumers. Capitalism absolutely requires consumers with sufficient buying power to purchase production.
Dollar-wise and percent-wise, consumer spending contributes far more to the economy than capital investment. (Somewhere on the order of 4 parts spending: 1 part capital investment.) So keeping wages up to a certain level is even more important than preserving capital for investment purposes.
Thus, a significant degree of economic "justice" for workers is also necessary to provide the consumer buying power needed to create the essential demand for production. Paying workers a decent wage is not just a "fairness" or "justice" issue, it's an absolute economic necessity.
I do not believe the benefits of production should be distributed completely equally. More productive individuals should receive more than less productive ones. In addition, some inequality of wealth distribution is essential, because it is this excess that provides capital. As such, some unevenness of wealth distribution is not only "fair," but it is in the best interest of the economy as well.
However, excessive rewards to the most productive members of society are also counterproductive, as they provide more capital than can be used productively. As such, this excess encourages non-productive investment and even counterproductive investment. In addition, it takes money away from workers and consumers, where it could have been better used to increase aggregate production demand, which would have then increased aggregate investment opportunities. The "fairness" of the rewards that more productive individuals should receive is debatable and subjective. In contrast, the optimal amount they should receive for the economic well-being of most people is objective. Though this level may be debatable, there is an objective and an optimal level.
I think there needs to be a tangible set of ideas to promote for populist economic policy. I think a general philosophy of one that provides the most good for the most people is where I would start. But I would not advocate a completely even distribution of wealth. I believe in some degree of meritocracy along with some degree of equality. Both, however, can be supported on the grounds of both fairness and economic productivity.
In our current economic state, a more equal distribution of wealth would not only be more "fair," it would result in greater aggregate wealth production, and a greater amount of wellbeing for a greater number of people.
I won't post extensive commentary on my own views of what is a fair distribution of wealth. It's not provable by definition. In contrast, I can comment on what is most productive. Though there are different estimates on what is the most productive distribution, there certainly is an optimal level. My goal is to find it and to advocate for it.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 15:54:06 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 15:57:24 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 15:59:05 GMT -6
LC,
That's an absolutely outstanding post on populism. I agree with everything you said. At this moment, I can't add much to what you've written. I'll add more in the future if I can.
I'll just re-state that populism should focus on the best interests of all the people, not just the affluent or the investors.
Perhaps a new tenet should be that populism should focus on long-term well being, as opposed to short-term quarterly gains in profits and returns.
A long-term focus is in the best interests of all, including those of Corporate America and business. The short-term interests of the affluent are not even best for their own long-term benefits, much less that of the majority of the less affluent. Additionally, the short-term self-interests of the less affluent may be served by increased ability to borrow, even while real wages decline. But this short-term well-being is clearly at the expense of long-term well-being.
So to the populist cause I would add the tenet of long-term wellbeing is more important than short-term well-being.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:00:34 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:01:42 GMT -6
LC,
I assume you mean, in reference to labor unions, that the labor movement should not have devoted all of its efforts to labor unions, though it should have devoted some efforts in that direction. Is that correct?
Also, could you expand a little on what you mean by "welfare as a state function"?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:04:44 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:06:15 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:08:52 GMT -6
LC, The Populist Party link is interesting. However, the 1st letter I read on the site is completely counter to what I believe. It was an article bemoaning complaints about "income inequality" and the author's opposition to Keynes and even to Krugman. I don't know if this article is representative of the party's overall view or not. The direct link to this is: www.populistamerica.com/wage_gaps__inequality__and_governmentI would say the article's author is light years from being a populist. Perhaps a Libertarian, but definitely not my idea of a populist. See what you think about the article.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:09:28 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:10:16 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:10:45 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:11:20 GMT -6
Populism puts Problem-Solving policy ahead of IdeologyThe goal of a "populist" philosophy again is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This means advocating and implementing policies to accomplish this. Such policies will change from time to time, due to changing problems within our nation, as well as in response to the relative effectiveness of those policies. This is in stark contrast to policies driven exclusively by ideology, regardless of whether they solve current problems, and regardless of whether they even make any sense. A perfect example of ideology-based policy is Bush's high-end, pseudo supply-side tax cuts. Unlike in the 1980's, when such tax cuts had some degree of logic behind them, and had some theoretical potential to help the economy, Bush's high-end tax cuts make no sense whatsoever. In fact, historic supply-side advocate Paul Craig Roberts, who pushed for supply-side tax cuts in the 1980's, states that Bush's tax cuts do not meet the criteria to be beneficial. Roberts states Bush "has hidden behind supply-side economics in order to reward his cronies." In an ideology-driven administration such as Bush's, however, the absence of logic and effectiveness is immaterial. The ideology maintains that the rich pay too much in taxes, period. So they've been cut, while a flimsy rationale has been created to justify the cuts. In fact, multiple rationales have been concocted to continue such problem- worsening policies. As is often the case with ideology, it's not based on what's best for all. It's based on what's best for the limited number of the ideology's advocates. Support for such ideologies is based largely on a few limited, carefully selected facts, as well as outright lies and bizarrely concocted theories. Populism is practical, and policies are aimed at solving current problems. Ideology ignores actual problems, while creating solutions for problems that don't currently exist. At the same time, ideology focuses on finding problems for the solutions they want to implement. The Bush plutocracy is a perfect example of ideology-driven policy. Problems occurring have changed nothing in the policies they've implemented. They've simply concocted myths to make their pre-determined solutions fit current problems. It's not about finding solutions to problems. It's about finding problems to apply their solutions to. The entire thought process is not about what action should we take to "fix" a problem. Rather, it is what story should we concoct to explain why their (pre-determined) solutions will solve current problems. It's all about justifying these "solutions" for problems, not solving the problems themselves. The Bush administration is one of the most anti-populist governments in U.S. history. Bush's goal is not do "the greatest good for the greatest number." The goal is to enrich those at the top, while concocting myths as to why his polices do "the greatest good for the greatest number." It's all about changing the public's perception of reality, not about changing the reality itself. In summary, Populism focuses on problem-solving policies, not blind ideology-driven policies. Populists believe "changing-the-course" if the current course is failing. Even with failing policies, ideologists believe in "staying-the-course," while simply "changing the public's perception."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:16:59 GMT -6
by LC
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:18:52 GMT -6
LC,
In my post regarding the Bush administration, I should have used the word "agenda" instead of "ideology." (I fell victim to using a media sound-bite.)
Bush had a pre-determined agenda before he took office. It bore no relationship to solving any problems, and has changed none as problems have arisen. All that's changed is the reasons for implementing his agenda.
Bush's "stay-the-course" sound-bite is very prophetic. He has stayed the course with his agenda, despite the events that have occurred on his watch. He planned an invasion of Iraq long before he was inaugurated. He also planned on cutting taxes on the rich long before ever taking office. He planned on facilitating job outsourcing to foreign countries to reduce Corporate labor costs, and increase Corporate profits prior to taking office. He planned on facilitating illegal immigration to increase the labor supply and reduce wages before taking office.
Upward redistribution of wealth, increasing Corporate profits, reducing wages, and invading Iraq, were all part of a pre-determined agenda. None of his agenda has changed in the slightest since he stole his first election.
The invasion of Iraq was simply an extension of his globalist trade policies designed to open up foreign resources and foreign labor markets to American investment and profiteering.
My point was that this "fixed-agenda" approach is a complete antithesis to populism. A populist adjusts policy in order to continue creating the most good for the greatest number. Specific populist policies are always subject to change, depending on current conditions.
A populist government might reduce taxes on the affluent if there was a true insufficiency of available capital, and a lack of capital investment. At other times, the same government might raise taxes on the affluent if there was an excess of capital compared to investment opportunities, or an excessive amount of non-productive investment in the face of huge deficits and inflation. In the latter case, the such tax increases would reduce inflation and increase the buying power of consumers by increasing the "real" value of current dollars. Such a policy would increase consumer spending, and increase investment opportunities for the currently excessive amount of available capital. Such tax increases would do the greatest good for the greatest number in the long-run.
My point about populist policy/philosophy is that it is pragmatic and dynamic. In contrast, an agenda-driven philosophy is inflexible, unresponsive, and simply an attempt to serve special interests only, not the needs of an entire nation.
Blindly "staying-the-course" is a perfect sound-bite for agenda-driven philosophy and policy. This is exactly how agenda-driven politicians run government. The only 'problems' they attempt to solve are those of public perception, not of actual problems themselves.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Nov 11, 2006 11:12:32 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 11, 2006 16:37:22 GMT -6
Mr Webb told cheering supporters in Arlington that his election was as much a vote for economic fairness as it was for a change of course in Iraq. More significantly a majority of the intake, including Mr Webb, are economic populists who are deeply suspicious of free trade and quick to blame China and other developing countries for the loss of US jobs. [/i][/quote] LC, You're right on the money. Webb gave an interview on Lou Dobbs and 90% of it was about economic fairness. In fact, Webb himself re-directed the interview away from Iraq toward issues of income inequality and economic populism. The Republi-thugs would like to believe the public is not concerned about growing income inequality and the constant upward re-distribution of wealth. But they're only deluding themselves. The public's not buying the propaganda that the economy is doing well and that everyone should be happy with all of this fictitious economic "growth." The social conservative wedge issues may have worked in the 2004 election. But not now. Americans are sick of the rich getting richer, while everyone else gets poorer. The Middle Class is being exterminated by the policies of the Bush Corporate Plutocracy. And the public now realizes it.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 9, 2007 5:53:30 GMT -6
Populism history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/Texts/populism.htmwww.ratical.org/corporations/PMSHAGAintro.txtOut of their cooperative struggle came a new democratic community. It engendered within millions of people what Martin Luther King would later call a "sense of somebodiness." This "sense" was a new way of thinking about oneself and about democracy. Thus armed, the Populists attempted to insulate themselves against being intimidated by the enormous political, economic, and social pressures that accompanied the emergence of corporate America. To describe that attempt is to describe their movement.
|
|