2014 Will Be The Year of “Economic Populism” – and Then?

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/17-3

?w=584&h=327
There will come a time when the American people demand not just discussion and research, but solutions,' writes Eskow.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that, at least politically, 2014 will be “The Year of Economic Populism.” Now the question is, who gets to decide what that really means?

A couple of recent policy disagreements offered us glimpses of the debates that could shape tomorrow’s new populist initiatives. These are the debates we should be having – and they’re debates that progressives can win.

Centering

The first disagreement began when the leaders of a Wall Street-funded organization called Third Way used a Wall Street Journal op-ed to attack popular Sen. Elizabeth Warren, dismissing the idea of “economic populism” in the process.

Jonathan Cowan and Jim Kessler probably didn’t know what hit them. After years of being treated like stars in the nation’s capital for their corporate-friendly views, it must’ve seemed as if the whole town had suddenly turned against them.

It had.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

1. K&R

[Scuba]

2. Good read ...

The ultra-wealthy and corporate interests will want to take a leading role in shaping this debate. In a development that is perhaps not coincidental, a World Economic Forum survey of nearly 1,600 elite decision-makers showed that they consider “widening income disparities” the second-most pressing problem the world faces today. (The Forum is the same group which organizes the elite Davos conference; see Lynn Parramore for more on the survey.)

That is not to suggest that the same decision-makers are likely to support highly redistributive economic policies. In fact, that’s highly unlikely. There are undoubtedly many among them who would prefer to contain the kind of populist movement which the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party represents.

One way to do that is with the strategy Bill Clinton employed so successfully – using the Democratic Party to articulate populist frustrations, while at the same time ensuring that no specific problems or policies are articulated that threaten entrenched interests. There are likely to be substantial differences of opinion between, say, the former president’s thoughts on economic populism and those represented by Sen. Warren and like-minded colleagues.

There’s a danger that populist and egalitarian ideas might be used to limit the scope of debate, by redefining the leftmost parameters of discussion within bounds that are considered safe for the status quo.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. "They consider “widening income disparities” the second-most pressing problem the world faces."

The most pressing problem remains the increasing difficulty of finding really decent caviar.

[BlueToTheBone]

3. k&r

[KoKo]

4. Here's the rest of the article for read..It's a Creative Commons Share...so can be posted

without violating Copyright:

More:

So far this all falls into the category of theoretical discussion. But this is a debate with very concrete, real-world consequences. If Ezra’s school of thought predominates, we could hear more people arguing, as he does, that we should promote stimulus spending and job creation without worrying about higher taxes on the rich.

In fact, Klein never gets around to explaining where the money for that stimulus spending is going to come from. Wouldn’t taxes be involved? He mentions the tax rates for the wealthy are apparently the highest they’ve been since 1979, but doesn’t mention how much higher they were just a few short years earlier.

Also unmentioned is the fact that the wealthy and the ultra-wealthy are capturing much more of the national income than they did in the 1990s. That means that 1979-era levels still leave the rich much richer, and public coffers much poorer, than they did back then. And he doesn’t mention corporate taxation, which is at or near 60-year lows. That’s why we were such a low-tax country in 2011, relatively speaking, and will remain so after the changes which Klein describes.

Ezra did a good thing by starting this debate. What’s needed now is greater clarity.

Populism’s future

The ultra-wealthy and corporate interests will want to take a leading role in shaping this debate. In a development that is perhaps not coincidental, a World Economic Forum survey of nearly 1,600 elite decision-makers showed that they consider “widening income disparities” the second-most pressing problem the world faces today. (The Forum is the same group which organizes the elite Davos conference; see Lynn Parramore for more on the survey.)

That is not to suggest that the same decision-makers are likely to support highly redistributive economic policies. In fact, that’s highly unlikely. There are undoubtedly many among them who would prefer to contain the kind of populist movement which the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party represents.

One way to do that is with the strategy Bill Clinton employed so successfully – using the Democratic Party to articulate populist frustrations, while at the same time ensuring that no specific problems or policies are articulated that threaten entrenched interests. There are likely to be substantial differences of opinion between, say, the former president’s thoughts on economic populism and those represented by Sen. Warren and like-minded colleagues.

There’s a danger that populist and egalitarian ideas might be used to limit the scope of debate, by redefining the leftmost parameters of discussion within bounds that are considered safe for the status quo.

But the benefits of having this conversation are likely to outweigh the risks. It’s a good thing when the President of the United States discusses income inequality, or Democratic thought leaders begin to argue among themselves about income inequality and unemployment. And it’s excellent news when more resources are being invested in these areas of economic research.

We already know that progressive and “populist” ideas are political winners. These are areas of debate and research where they can win intellectually as well, as long as the playing field is kept level.
There will come a time when the American people demand not just discussion and research, but solutions. What happens in today’s debates could determine whether or not voters are able to vote for policies which represent their interests, in 2014 and the election years that follow.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

[winter is coming]

5. I have no doubt that some will try to define the leftmost "practical" position in this debate as

as something corporatists are comfortable with. I'm not sure that shit's gonna fly this time around, though. So many people have been leading precarious existences for so long, seeing their prosperity and security relentlessly whittled away while the rich prosper, that it's going to be a hard sale, and empty platitudes aren't going to get it done.

[MisterP]

13. the "Harold Ford '16" campaign will of course have a big clenched fist for a logo

[pampango]

6. From the link to "Washington 'Centrists' Don't Want Obama to Target Inequality. They're Pushing Bad"

Shortly before their op-ed ran, President Obama declared that inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.” The Center for American Progress (CAP) announced the creation of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth (WCEG) at roughly the same time, even as founding director John Podesta was being tapped by the White House to serve as a “counselor” to the President for one year.

It was a measure of today’s shifting political landscape that a major response to Third Way came from Neera Tanden, CAP’s President, who vigorously countered Cowan and Kessler in a piece entitled “Washington ‘Centrists’ Don’t Want Obama to Target Inequality. They’re Pushing Bad Politics—And Bad Economics.”

In Ronald Reagan’s home state of California, Gov. Jerry Brown fought for a proposition to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year and to increase the state’s sales tax by a quarter-cent directly to Californians in 2012. The establishment of a “millionaire tax” didn’t drive away innovators, but allowed the state’s leaders to say no to painful budget cuts and turned California into a global model for how to make an economy that works for everybody. Brown turned a $27 billion deficit into a surplus, brought down California’s unemployment rate, and improved the state’s credit rating. As Brown’s progressive, middle-out economic agenda paid dividends, his approval ratings soared.

Bill de Blasio and Elizabeth Warren aren’t arguing that everyone should pay more in taxes, but only that the wealthy should pay their fair share. President Obama is advocating for the idea that when the top 10 percent of earners take home 50 percent of the country’s wealth, it’s reasonable to ask that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share to ensure that all Americans have a shot at economic success. There’s another politician who raised taxes on the wealthy by raising the top marginal rate who was handily reelected President: Bill Clinton.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115941/washington-centrists-dont-want-focus-inequality-theyre-wrong

[Cosmocat]

8. Small blips on the radar

WE know this is the formula, but the collective idiocy of the populace of this country will continue to march forward with finding ways to work against their own best interests.

[L0oniX]

11. A pay check is eveyones best interests. Put enough people out of work or in low pay jobs and...

shrink the middle class ....people will work for their best interests when it's about money.

[Cosmocat]

14. We had shrinking paychecks for a decade leading into 2010

and in their infinite wisdom the electorate of this country decided to elect the largest class of right wing extremists we have seen in our lives, one of the biggest wave elections ever, to sweep republicans into power in DC.

Don't mistake what I am posting for disagreeing philosophically.

It is simple god darned common sense to adapt universal health care with a strong government run retirement system and reasonable oversight of commerce and the financial industry.

But, sorry, I have seen enough now to know that the level of relative affluence in this country is FAR to high. Pay may be going down, but FAR too many people have smart phones, eat out multiple times a way, take multiple vacations, have an endless array of electronic devices and other conveniences ...

Hell, we can't get over 30% turnout in elections outside of presidentials.

Sorry, too many people are not in the game and too many people buy their bullshit like it's cookies and cream.

The only people who turn out every election of the people who get ginned up to hate the evil liberal boogyman over god, gays and guns.

We are LONG, LONG way from the critical mass for the people in this country to really punish the elite rich and republican party.

[mountain grammy]

7. Well, with Pope Francis weighing in too, 2014 could get interesting..

I sure hope so. Looking forward to the new year!

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Good Article; however ...

I have a small quibble.

The intensity of the ensuing debate contrasted sharply with the wobbliness of Klein’s central thesis, a weakness which stems from the notion that “a world in which inequality is the top concern” is somehow different from “a world in which growth and unemployment are top concerns.”

They are, in fact, the same world. Measures which stimulate growth and reduce unemployment are also likely to increase competition for workers, driving up lower–end wages. And measures which reduce inequality by returning more of our nation’s income to the “99 percent” will also increase consumer demand, stimulating growth and reducing unemployment.

In reality, you can’t do one without the other. It’s a distinction without a difference.

They are NOT the same world. While the second point is certainly true; recent history demonstrates that the first point does not necessarily occur. We have seen that with "Measures which stimulate growth and reduce unemployment" (e.g., infrastructure stimulus spending), the competition for workers has NOT driven up wages; rather, the "growth has flowed to the investor class, while worker wages have remained stagnant.

While I agree, it would be far easier, and we probably would be best served in the immediate term, to focus on providing jobs, any progress would be unsustainable without an economic policy that addresses inequality (e.g., increased minimum wage (livable wage), a tax policy that encourages re-investment rather than hoarding, etc).

BTW ... I hate the "income inequality" frame ... It allows for simplicistic images of economic redistribution through "takings", while ignoring the "social utility of re-investment" argument.

[bleedinglib]

12. Taxes on the wealthy??

I'm going too try and explain what I remember about the tax structure in the 40' 50's & 60's??
The rate on $xx,xxx,xxx,xx amount of income was 95%. If you invested in your business or creating jobs,
infrastructure or anything that helped the American economy, the tax exemptions brought the rate down considerably, maybe 20 or 30% tops.
Now, since the 80's & the RR policies the greedy bastards hide it in off shore accts.
and too hell with america.
The best thing that could happen too this country is elect a strong Dem. Congress & Liz. Warren.

Please post some input on these figures??