On Sunday 2003-07-20 18:54, Kevin Tarr wrote: > From: Trent Shipley > > >In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they > > require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems > > stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a > > combination of social atomization (probably a result of > > immigration--Americans feel relatively little organic connection to > > neighbors compared to the Dutch or > >Scandanavians) and Puritan heritage (meaning that wealth is regarded as > > both a sign of virture and an absolute right) have made trickle up > > policies very difficult to pass in the US. > > > >In short, 'trickle up', 'share the wealth' policies are regarded as > >un-American. > > I agree with what you are saying, but couldn't there be another factor? I'm > wondering: from 1450 to 1600 or 1700s (whenever real colonization of the > Americas began) was there any middle class in Europe? There had to be some > tip over point where a person could see that he didn't have to be a surf, > or go into the priesthood, or join an army to become better than the > situation he was born into. I'm sure the industrial revolution played a > part in that, but were there any worker strikes in Europe before America?
No. There were no worker strikes to speak of before the 1800s. There were guild actions, bread riots, and peasant rebellions--but nothing quite like an Industral Revolution labor action. > I'm just trying to imagine a world where Americas became another Europe > with all the old ways. Instead of toiling on farms for some wealthy > landowner, they toiled in a factory for some wealthy factory owner. I'm > sure for some of the more socialist list members, this is the system we > have now but I'm trying to be realistic, in my fantasy world. Slavery. Its in the Constitution. 3/5ths of a person and so on. > While anecdotal evidence is bad, I've know plenty of people who lived > before and during the depression who say "We weren't poor. Maybe we only > ate meat twice a week, or had tough winters, but we made due." Human nature > was the same back then. They knew who the truly poor families were and I > doubt as many people died of starvation or were homeless. (When the > population as a whole had a normal supply of food and shelter.) Some > families did have tough times from lack of work or losing one or both > parents for whatever reason, but not a small fraction brought it on > themselves through drinking or other non-productive behaviors. "but not a small fraction brought it [poverty] on themselves through drinking or other non-productive behaviors" - Indeed. But that sort of *radical* investment in personal responsibility and denial of any reciprocal responsibilty for members of an (organic) community can only exist in the Americas--and to a lesser extent in Anglophone countries. Scandanavians feel obliged to care for less fortunate neigbors--and if that misfortune is partly self inflicted, then they deal with the dysfunction. (Scandinavians who don't like this move to America.) I know American's who feel very little obligation toward adult family members. I rember being in highschool with other kids who were really terrified that their parents would cut them off when they turned 18. (It even shows up in pop culture. On Buffy Xander graduates and his parents move him to the basement and charge rent.) > What I'm trying to come around to: "trickle up" for good or evil has been > in place seventy years, at least as government policy, and it certainly > hasn't eliminated the poor, it has probably increased. I know this is a bad > statement. Well, its actually wrong. America, and Americans, were *much* poorer in the 1930s and before. Immense swaths of the country and whole populations were brought into the mainstream by the New Deal. In a lot of ways the Great Society also worked -- and the demise of Jim Crow didn't hurt either. The real problem with "share the wealth, trickle up" programs, besides the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow growth. If you put off the sharing for another 20 years ... the wealth curve with either stay the same or get worse. On the up side there will probably be *a lot* more wealth to share AND the poor may no longer be misable and powerless--just powerless. But since trickle down gave them a lot more stuff too, they might be satisfied with the current state of bread and circuses, allowing for another 20 years of full growth. Oh yeah, trickle down programs also tend to be anti-cyclical. They help stabilize the economy. Though trickle-up entitelments slow growth, they also help lessen recessions. > I don't want to hear about Herr Doctor's diamond shaped society > because for 10,000 years there was no such thing. We can't expect this > recent change in the human condition to be stable. I'm not saying it should > go away, and we should fight however hard we can to keep it, but there will > be ups and downs. What I'm more worried about is being dragged down, not by > consolidation of wealth at the top, but by everyone below. (Another stupid, > bad statement, but this is the last line I wrote and I'm going to bed. The > rest was written before.) As an American you have good reason to worry about being dragged down. I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if there were a free global market for labor. Knowledge occupations are much closer to a level playing field today than they were 20, or even 5 years, ago. The American programmer is *not* a happy camper. Most American programmers seem to want, nay righteously demand, protection from their slavic and wog collegues. (So much for the international solidarity of labor....) You might, however, take comfort in the decent likelyhood that the Epinonymous one is wrong about the "diamond shaped" society. 1) You could argue that America has never had a particularly diamond-shaped wealth curve. 2) You could argue that we over-estimate the pyramidal shape of historic societies. The Europe of immiserating poverty that we imagine is in many ways a product of the potato and the industrial revolution. Parts of Europe, like Switzerland seem to never have had the sorts of wealth disparities that we live with in American today--and since at least 1825. Other areas, like England, Germany, and Northern Italy clearly had a huge upswing in desperate poverty with a combination of industrialization and the post-potato population explosion. 3) A society's wealth curve is determined by a complex set of processes. > Let's be honest: the poor in this country are far better off then the poor > in other countries. That does not give me or them any comfort. Yes, I'm > isolated from the truly poor people where I live. I know I don't do enough > to help, but a tax system that forces me to help is the worst thing to do. "a tax system that forces me to help [the poor] is the worst thing to do." Aha! I do not believe that this sentiment can be founded on a sound policy argument. (For example, the theory behind a progressive tax is pretty strong.) I think that this is, however, a very American sentiment--help for ... well whatever ... should be entirely voluntary, paid for with what economists call a "sod tax" (because only a fool pays a voluntary tax--that is, makes a donation). Paying for scientific research, arts, or humanities are all unpopular in the US, paying domestic welfare even more so, and providing assistance to developing contries just makes most (but not all) Americans furious. > I have to ask: how many of us sci-fi readers think of the Star Trek > universe as the best, as far as humanity is concerned. Would we look at > earth 2350 and see no poverty? The first season of ST:TNG had the crew > waking three deep sleep humans. Sure, just like Bones in ST IV: The Search > for Whales, the doctor could treat their maladies, but Crusher also cleaned > their addictions, and they talked about having no money. Do we believe that > human nature has been cleaned also? Everyone works, no one covets anothers' > things, there is no envy or greed? (Lust and to a lessor extent jealousy > are still there, just look at Kirk.) Look, technology alone makes thinks better. How many parents do you know who have lost children to infectious disease? How many minor children do you know who have been orphaned. As late as 1900 these were commonplaces, even for the rich. American has not seen domestic war since 1865, there has been no war in Western Europe since 1945. Given the kinds of emotional shocks and stresses that were ordinary for our forefathers its amazing that all our grandparents weren't raving lunitics. Well, maybe they were. My generation of self, sib, and cousins have our share of behavioral health problems -- but we are more sane than our grandparents. Humans will remain humans, but eliminating childhood horrors will continue to make a difference in human well being. Its better than that, less traumatized children tend to be more adequate parents, who can provide even healthier childhoods for their own children. > Kevin T. - VRWC > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
