pampango
pampango's JournalCountries with the most equal income distributions all do it with the same policies.
High/progressive taxes;
Strong safety net and national health care;
Legal support for strong unions.
The US has none of those. Our taxes are low and regressive; our safety net is weak; our health care system may be improving but it way below the standard of progressive countries; with the enactment of Taft-Hartley we not only do not legally support strong unions we actively undercut them with "right-to-work" states.
The list of those with the most equitable income distributions includes no countries with low/regressive taxes, a porous safety net and weak unions that is on If we are going to deal with our inequality we have to deal with these issues. We don't need to reinvent the "income equality" 'wheel' that has already been proven to work in many progressive countries.
OTOH, the countries on that list that have the best distributions of income in the world, all recognize the value of international trade. Such trade is a much, much larger part of their economies than it is in the US.
74% in Germany
62% in Sweden
51% in Canada
47% in France
37% in the UK
22% in the US
The US cannot effectively deal with inequality by restricting international trade. None of the progressive countries in the world do this.
And the US actually tried this in the 1920's when republicans repeatedly raised tariffs and reduced trade substantially. The result: by the end of the 1920's we had a record level of income inequality. FDR dealt with this by enacting higher/progressive taxes, improving the safety net and creating legal support for unions - just what progressive countries do today. And FDR took steps to increase international trade - just what progressive countries do today.
Add to those: Return the appointment of U.S. Senators by the State Legislatures,
...“climate change” is a political agenda which attempts to control every aspect of our lives. We urge government at all levels to ignore any plea for money to fund global climate change or “climate justice” initiatives.
We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.
We are resolute in our support of the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out Social Security ...
We demand the immediate repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which we believe to be unconstitutional.
We support land drilling and production operations including hydraulic fracturing.
We oppose the implementation of any Cap and Trade (aka “Cap and Tax”) system through legislation or regulation.
We support the immediate approval and construction of the Keystone XL and other pipelines ...
We also encourage the adoption of a National Right-to-Work Act.
We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed.
We believe Congress should repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 there by abolishing the Federal Reserve Banking System.
We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from United States soil.
We oppose foreign aid except in cases of national defense or catastrophic disasters, with Congressional approval.
We support United States withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.
Pew Poll: Republicans put more value on living with family/friends who share their politics.
To chart the progression of ideological thinking, responses to 10 political values questions asked on multiple Pew Research surveys since 1994 have been combined to create a measure of ideological consistency. Over the past twenty years, the number of Americans in the “tails” of this ideological distribution has doubled from 10% to 21%. Meanwhile, the center has shrunk: 39% currently take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions. That is down from about half (49%) of the public in surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.
And this shift represents both Democrats moving to the left and Republicans moving to the right, with less and less overlap between the parties. Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median (middle) Democrat, compared with 64% twenty years ago. And 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican, up from 70% in 1994.
Liberals and conservatives share a passion for politics. They are far more likely than those with more mixed ideological views to discuss politics on a weekly or daily basis. But for many, particularly on the right, those conversations may not include much in the way of opposing opinions.
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of consistent conservatives and about half (49%) of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Among those with mixed ideological values, just 25% say the same. People on the right and left also are more likely to say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views, though again, that desire is more widespread on the right (50%) than on the left (35%).
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
I suspect that one large reason for the conservatives' greater preference to live with around people who share their political views is that those views are largely based on emotion and fear rather than science and history. Living around other folks who share your preference for politics based on emotion and fear leads to fewer confrontations from facts and science.
Swedish Official Praises US -EU Trade Agreement
They also listened as the top trade official from the Swedish embassy sang the praises of the proposed trade agreement that has been on the lips of many American and European officials this year.
But the “real meat” of the agreement, according to Andreas von Uexküll, minister-counselor for trade, is in the long-term regulatory integration that it promises for the world’s two largest economies. Officials hope the ambitious pact will yield common standards on issues like auto crash testing, intellectual property enforcement, poultry processing, financial investment and much more.
Though contentious, this process is essential to knitting both sides more tightly together, Mr. von Uexküll said during the event hosted by the Swedish-American Chamber of Commerce of Georgia at Piedmont Park.
The average American businessperson likely knows less about it than the average European. In Sweden, on the other hand, even labor unions favor the agreement, he said. “Here I get a different impression,” he said.
http://www.globalatlanta.com/article/26956/swedish-official-sings-praises-of-us-eu-trade-agreement/
It's hard to support or oppose something that is still so vague.
"1) nationalist, anti-globalist arguments ... , 2) anti-immigrant politics ..., 3) a white electoral
strategy ..."
According to Burghart, "For years, far right activists in the United States, particularly those interested in mainstreaming their particular brand of bigotry in the political arena, have looked to Europe as a source of hope and inspiration. They have also developed long-standing multilateral relationships with their European counterparts."
The "European right-wing comes of age," declared the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), one of the largest white nationalist groups in the United States. "Folks, I'm here to tell you that this week's election results in Europe have given me a lot of hope," proclaimed Tennessee white nationalist talk show host, James Edwards. The Virginia white nationalist think-tank, American Renaissance, called the elections "a promising shift to the Right" and hoped that "we are perhaps seeing the first rays of a new dawn after a long night."
David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and former Republican Louisiana State Representative, went straight to the anti-Semitic card. Duke wrote that, "the results of European Parliament elections held last week have at last shown that in many parts of Europe, resistance to the ideologies enforced by Jewish Supremacists — mass immigration and globalization — are being decisively rejected."
I can see why the American far-right would be "ecstatic" over the electoral success of of the European far-right. Their nut jobs are put in force celebrating with their usual brand of bigoted and nativist rhetoric.
The far-right did well in the EU parliament elections. TTIP is not going anywhere.
Both the left and right oppose it.France's Front National leader Marine Le Pen will meet other far-right and eurosceptic leaders on Wednesday in an attempt to create a powerful bloc in the European parliament.
Le Pen insisted the party's score was an unqualified victory despite an abstention rate of 57%. She demanded that France call a halt to talks between the European Union and the United States to create a vast free market, known as the Transatlantic Trade Treaty.
"I clearly call on the president of the Republic, firstly the dissolution of the Assemblée Nationale, because you know it is no longer at all representative of the French people," Le Pen said.
"I also demand that he does three things to take Sunday's vote into account: firstly, France halts the transatlantic treaty, secondly, France states its veto of Turkey's entry into the European Union and, thirdly, he nationalises Alstom, contrary to the rules of the European Union, to save this strategic company."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/marine-le-pen-met-far-right-leaders-eu-bloc
"Vladimir Putin has a lot in common with those very American hawks who hate him the most."
Putin wants to restore international respect (fear of?) Russia. He has been very effective at pursuing Russian national interests, even expanding its national boundaries which is something American hawks can only dream of.
Ever since Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, American pundits have strained to understand his view of the world. Putin’s been called a Nazi; a tsar; a man detached from reality. But there’s another, more familiar framework that explains his behavior. In his approach to foreign policy, Vladimir Putin has a lot in common with those very American hawks (or “neocons” in popular parlance) who revile him most.
1. Putin is obsessed with the threat of appeasement
To Kristol, McCain, and their ilk, the United States is a nation perennially bullied by adversaries who are tougher, nastier, and more resolute than we are. ... In his (Putin's) view, it’s Russia that has been perennially bullied by tougher and nastier countries—in particular, America and its NATO allies. “They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact,” he explained in a speech announcing Russia’s incorporation of Crimea. “They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner.” But now, finally, the era of appeasement is over. “Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from,” Putin said. “If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard.”
2. Putin is principled—so long as those principles enhance national power
For Putin, an anti-Russian government in Kiev is illegitimate regardless of how it takes power. For many American hawks, the same is now true for a pro-Chávez government in Latin America or an Islamist government in the Middle East. ... In the United States, both hawks and doves like to claim that they’re promoting cherished principles like democracy and freedom. The difference is that doves are more willing to acknowledge that these principles can undermine American interests. For most hawks, by contrast, the fight for democratic ideals must serve American power.
3. Putin doesn’t understand economic power
This indifference to the economic aspects of statecraft was a defining feature of the Bush administration, where treasury secretaries played a marginal foreign-policy role ... Seeing “economics” as separate from “foreign policy issues” is precisely what Clinton decried in the 1990s, and it’s the weakness in Putin’s strategy today. But it’s a weakness that many American hawks share. For decades now, Kristol and McCain have insisted that America relentlessly expand its global military footprint and relentlessly boost its defense budget. I’ve never seen either make a serious effort to explain how this should be paid for.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/vladimir-putin-russian-neocon/284602/
Like American hawks Putin sees a strong and assertive military as a symbol of national power. "For Putin, too, overcoming appeasement requires overcoming the soft, unmanly culture that made Russia unwilling to fight. The fall of the Soviet Union, he argued last year, “was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes” that led to “primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad.”
Like American hawks if Putin likes a government he supports into matter how it came to power. If he does not like it, it matters little how it came to power.
Like our hawks he cares little about economics and the quality of people's lives. Pressuring or invading weak neighbors - Granada, Panama, Georgia, Ukraine - is more their style since it enhances national power and prestige, at least in the eyes of fellow hawks.
Putin has been very effective in pursuing Russia's "national interest". If he has been similarly successful at enacting new domestic social legislation or progressive taxes, I have missed it. What he has done domestically is sign repressive legislation against gays, dissidents and separatist movements within Russia. IOW, he has been very effective from a "hawk" point of view but he is no liberal.
At 1.1% of GDP Ukraine's military budget is as low as Sweden, Denmark, Germany
and most other European countries. (1.1% in Sweden, 1.2% in Germany, 1.4% in Denmark) And, of course, Ukraine's GDP is relatively small.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine
By comparison, the US and Russia spend between 4% and 5% of their much larger GDP's on their militaries.
In terms of military budgets and income equality Ukraine is much more "European" than the US or Russia but at times like this having a relatively poorly funded military must be a pain.
Depending on where one thinks the bulk of the fighters and weapons are coming from, the military is being asked to either attack their fellow Ukrainians (something, as you point out that they may have been reluctant to do under Yanukovich) who have stumbled upon and quickly learned how to use sophisticated weapons or go up against an extremely well-armed fighters backed by a very powerful military.
Ratio of incomes of the top 10% vs. bottom 10%: 16-1 in US, 13-1 in Russia, 6-1 in Ukraine, Sweden,
Norway and Finland, 7-1 in Germany, 9-1 in Canada, 22-1 in China, 5-1 in Japan and 8-1 in South Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
The Scandanavian countries are not surprising. I think most of us expect them to be near the top in income equality.
I figured that the US and Russia would be near the bottom - big military budgets and regressive taxes. China is even worse than I would have thought. (All that new wealth is obviously highly concentrated.)
Ukraine surprised me. I would not have guessed that it on a par with the Scandanavian countries (although at a much lower income level I'm sure) in terms of equality. Those billionaire politicians you always hear about must not be a numerous as I would have thought.
Japan and South Korea were surprisingly very equitable.
There is no symmetry between the so-called 'extremism' of left and right (Syriza in Greece)
The recent election of Syriza in Greece (Report, 26 May) offers a vibrant glimmer of hope for the future of social and economic democracy in Europe. At the same time, however, the rise of rightwing nationalism, stoking racist and antisemitic sentiments, threatens the ideals of a plural and democratic Europe. Media accounts that misrepresent the importance of the growing electoral support for Syriza as the rise of leftwing "extremism" must be countered in the strongest of terms. There is no contemporary symmetry between the so-called "extremism" of left and right.
The efforts to dismiss the emphatic call for economic justice in both Greece and Spain (Podemos gathered 8%) as "populist", "anti-European" or "scepticism" misreads their political reach and importance. These radical left victories cannot be compared with the rise of the Front National in France, Ukip in England, the strengthening of antisemitic parties in both Greece and Hungary as well as anti-immigrant populism in Belgium and Denmark.
The rise of the "Eurosceptic" right wing, with its clearly racist platforms, is a direct result of austerity policies. The rise of the left, on the other hand, offers a critique and alternative to social and economic inequalities spawned by austerity policies. To prevent violence and despair spreading further, the European Union needs new alliances across national borders and a radical rearrangement of its institutions to achieve greater democracy and economic equality. A major public debate should be launched to discuss the future of the EU, the role of solidarity and social justice, and the contemporary meaning of the "idea of Europe".
The success of a democratic public debate, however, depends upon truth and transparency in the media representation of political movements and their claims. We demand vigilant attention to the difference between political objections to austerity that seek greater inequality and those that seek greater equality. Only then can we see more clearly how the future of democracy is at stake.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/03/no-symmetry-extremism-left-right
An extremely timely letter. The "Eurosceptic right wing" seeks to break up the EU and foster greater inequality economically, between immigrants and native-born and between Christians-Muslims-Jews-Atheists. The radical left seeks "greater equality" with "new alliances across national borders and a radical rearrangement of its institutions to achieve greater democracy and economic equality", IOW a shift to fighting inequality caused by austerity by enhancing and improving the EU, its structures and its policies, not by destroying it.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Xenia, OH
Member since: Tue Sep 19, 2006, 04:46 PM
Number of posts: 24,692
