The lost decade

[elfs]

Take a look at Figure 2 on the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities latest report. Look closely: the highest median income for the middle class was in 2000. Don't look at 2008, look at 2007.

During the supposed high-flying Bush years, when we were "awash" with cash, when we were "flush" with money, when the country was supposedly going gangbusters (even though a lot of that money didn't "really" exist), the data show that the median income for Americans was still never as high as the last year of the Clinton presidency.

Financially, we never went anywhere as a country during the Bush era. And yet, we're all painfully aware that the rich became significantly more rich in that time.

This is not capitalism as it is classically understood. The rising tide only lifted a few, privileged boats: the rest of us sank. A lot.

Comments

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Mean incomes were rising, but only because the very wealthiest were gaining.

I think the whole way we measure economic success is screwed up. Instead of per capita GDP and similar measures, we should use such measures as *median* income, bottom 10% income, income disparity, how many people can access goods and services, etc. Instead of seeking to increase total wealth, we should seek to increase the living standards of *everyone* and to close up the difference between rich and poor. Because, once you exceed a certain minimum level, income disparity has a much greater impact on one's happiness than actual amount of money.

If we were to focus on such measures, the total GDP probably wouldn't rise as fast (indeed, that's a virtual certainty - if such a focus was the most efficient means of increasing total GDP, than the GDP-focus would've had the same effect), but the actual standards of living of the majority would rise. And that's far more important than the amount of money in existence, or how well-off the richest 1% are. (And, quite frankly, once you reach that high of an income, money's really just a scoring method)

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

And now we have the highest unemployment rate in decades, and it keeps getting worse under Obama and a liberal-controlled Congress.

It's not JUST the executive branch that you need to be looking at... the make-up of the legislative branch is as much, if not MORE responsible for the economic situation.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Wow, you expect a lot for just a couple months on the job, don't you?

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

8 months so far. Only 40 more to go. Obama hasn't been in office just "a couple months"... he's completed 17% of his first (and hopefully last) term.

And yes, I can blame a LOT of the current problems on his sweeping "change".

Thousands of car dealerships forced to close. Many small businesses forced to shrink their workforce in order to stay profitable. Trillions going toward "bailouts" and "tax credits" which people won't see until 2013...

No, I don't expect a lot... I expected the demise that Obama is steering us toward, which is why he didn't get my vote.

[shaterri.livejournal.com]

What thousands of dealerships 'forced to close'? Are those the same ones that Chrysler started closing nine months before the 2008 elections?

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

Now you're just making things up.

GM was forced to close about 1350 of their dealerships AFTER Obama ousted their CEO and installed his own guy, despite the fact that dealerships are SELF SUSTAINING and don't cost the corporation even 1/10th of 1 percent of their revenue.

Chrysler close about 850 dealerships... and it was a complete surprise to everyone in May of 2009, not 9 months before the elections.

[(Anonymous)]

What's your source for that information about the viability of those dealerships?

Number 127

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

What do you think John McCain would have done in the last eight months, and what difference would it have made?

I'm willing to be convinced that you have a valid point. What evidence can you offer?

[scyllacat.livejournal.com]

Does this explain why the levies broke?

I'm kind of heartbroken about all this.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

The levies broke because Lousiana politicians are corrupt and diverted the federal funds that were sent to rebuild them.

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

I heard a story about this from my friends in the Netherlands?

First off, the Dutch are the world's most ardent capitalists. They don't care who you are, what you're doing or what you're going to do with what they're selling; you got the money, they got the product. Gen III nightvision to Iraq before the US invaded? Sold. No profit is too small for the Dutch.

But when a Dutch contractor, who was hired to help design and build the levees in N'awlins, saw the rampant corruption, egregious fraud, waste and abuse, they refunded the money they were paid and left.

They may be true capitalists, but at least they have a sense of decency and honor.

Urban Legend? I dunno? But I've heard it from a few Dutch folks, not all of whom talk to each other. Go figure.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

And you're surpised by this?