How is this situation different from what we saw in discussions about
ozone holes and the role of aerosol sprays a few years/decades ago?
As I recall, much of the early discussion was ideologically based, but
as the scientific consensus emerged, ideology seemed to drop away for
most people. I don't see that happening where global warming is
concerned, at least not yet, and I'm left wondering what is making
such a huge difference....
Barry
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Arthur Cordell wrote:
What is missing is certainty. The climate discussion is muddied by
lack of clarity and certainty. And the mixup last year around
possible fudging of numbers caused even more doubt.
And so the ideologues of the left and right are carrying the
discussion. If it were only so clear as typhus. Although recall
the hoopla around H1N1 last year and the discussions that followed
among which: The WHO was only trying to improve their position, big
pharma was in on ‘the deal’, etc.
arthur
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 12:04 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]Ultra-
richgettingricherwhile middle class stagnates
Ed,
That's my point... the current position of say the "deniers" seems
to me to be utterly irrational from almost any perspective (unless
they have access to a spaceship and a friendly host planet that we
don't know about, or of course if they are among the 110,000 elect
after the rapture...
As I understand the history of both the social welfare state and of
philanthropy they were largely motivated (from the elite
persepctive) by a recognition that for example typhus (from bad
living conditions) isn't necessarily stopped by a doorman at the
curbside... So, we do something about that because my kids can
succumb to typhus or the plague alongside anyone else's... It would
seem to me that the (even remote) possibility of major changes in
sea level would scare the bejeezus out of Upper East Side
Manhattanites just as much as anyone else.
But maybe I'm missing something...
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:11 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]Ultra-
richgettingricherwhile middle class stagnates
Not sure of what they'd gain Mike, except being on the deck that
sinks last. I believe that one has to recognize how people behave
in hierarchical systems in which power and wealth is greatest in the
stratum at the top and least or not at all in the stratum at the
bottom. That seems to be the way the world operates in its
economic, political and religious institutions. That is how the
systems that comprise our world have operated regardless of the
ideologies or theologies that underpinned them. Following the
Russian Revolution all people in the Soviet Union were supposed to
be equal players. But of course they weren't. Within a short time,
enormous differences in power and prestige appeared. The founding
fathers wanted America to be the ideal democracy, but look at the
huge differences in wealth and power now. And look at the hugely
stratified medieval church, supposedly based on the simple and
egalitarian words of Christ.
I don't think it really matters very much whether the Titanic is
sinking or remains afloat. What seems to matter most is to move up
to the layer above and then shut the door behind you to keep others
from moving up too.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Gurstein
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-
richgettingricherwhile middle class stagnates
Ed and all,
I think I understand the "how" what I don't understand is the
"why"... If we are all on the Titanic (as many are now arguing) this
time there don't seem to be any realistic lifeboats for the rich to
elbow or buy their way into so what does anyone gain by hastening
the sinking?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 6:30 AM
To: [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME
DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich
gettingricherwhile middle class stagnates
I'd have to reread parts of Hacker and Pierson to give you a good
answer, Harry, but I believe their argument is that the rich got
richer by maneuvering things in their favour. Via legislative and
other means, they moved power toward themselves and with that power
came wealth. Tax cuts for the rich, part of trickle down economics,
came into being under Ronald Reagan. Unions, once a very powerful
force, declined into being almost impotent. Lobbying played a
significant role in moving political matters to favour the rich.
Under a Supreme Court ruling corporations in which the super-rich
play a major ownership role can now virtually buy members of the
House and Senate by funding their elections.
I'd better stop before I put myself into the role of having to
reread the book. Do read it yourself, Harry. It's well worth it.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Pollard
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' ;
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich getting
richerwhile middle class stagnates
Points well taken, Ed.
How exactly did they become mega-rich – or even just rich?
Just how was the wealth shifted?
Harry
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich getting
richer while middle class stagnates
I posted something on the American situation re this a few weeks
ago. Here's some of what I said:
I’ve been reading “Winner-Take-All Politics” by Jacob Hacker and
Paul Pierson, two political scientists. Hacker and Pierson examine
the period from the 1970s to the present and find a very large shift
wealth from the bottom and middle classes of American society to the
uppermost classes. While all classes gained some income between
1979 and 2006, the incomes of the top one percent of all recipients
increased by 256%! By 2007, the richest one percent received some
23% of all of the income earned or accruing to Americans.
Along with this upward redistribution, the power of unions
diminished, unemployment rose and the political clout of the middle
class faded away.
We Canadians like to look upon our neighbors to the south with a
little disdain. Hey, we’re not like that, we tell ourselves. Well,
perhaps we are, at least a little. Hacker and Pierson have a chart
that shows that Canada’s top income recipients were not very far
behind their US counterparts between 1973 and 2000. During that
period, the share of income held by the US top one percent rose from
about 7% to about 16%, whereas in Canada it rose from over 8% to
over 12%.
I'd have to take another look at Hacker and Pierson, but what they
were arguing is that the ultra-rich have spent a lot of time rigging
the p0litical process to suit their purposes. Increasingly, members
of Congress have been working in their interests and not in those of
the population as a whole. It matters little to them that the
country as a whole is on a downward economic slope. What matters is
that their power and wealth increases.
Things are not quite like that in Canada yet, but we may be heading
in the same general direction. It seems that wealth and power have
become the game, and not the common good.
Ed
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
