Shattered Pillars of the Middle Class

Two and a half years into the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, we have gone backward instead of ahead. The pillars of the middle class aren't just crumbling. They're being eroded by systematic policy and failures to react.

• Pillar 1 of the mass middle class was regular wage increases reflecting regular increases in labor productivity. Productvity has continued to increase, but wages have not.

The wealth produced by labor is not getting plowed back into the wages of labor. This was the core problem that Karl Marx addressed in his analysis of capital: exploitation consists of owners' taking the surplus-value produced by labor, or what we now call value-added, rather than splitting it fairly according to the actual contributions of capital and labor.  This critique is more relevant than ever in advanced economies, given data like this.

For more charts straight from ye olde class struggle, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics report - no doubt slated for defunding by the Republican House as a fountainhead of Socialist propaganda.   I can't resist this one:

Labor Share of nonfarm business sector output, first quarter 1947–third quarter 2010

While the causes aren't entirely clear, the result is: a smaller piece of value added for employees.

• Pillar 2 of the middle class: home ownership, now eroded by the steady increase of the home's value, which became a necessity in recent decades because wages were not increasing.  These days, 1,000,000 families have their homes forclosed each year, with 2011's rate due to be higher than 2010s.  And you know all about the crash in prices (Case-Schiller index interactive is here, and Dean Baker's February Housing Market Monitor is here).  There is no housing price bottom yet.
• PIllar 3 was stable pension and benefits.  Defined benefit pensions, based on a service formula that guarnateed a payout, have been destroyed by the private sector. The huge part of the middle and working classes who now depend on "defined contribution" pensions - 401(k) plans and so on, lost a huge piece of their retirement in the 2008 crash, and may or may not have gotten that back. That low private sector standard is now being touted as a benchmark by people wanting to get rid of public sector pensions. The Wisconsin protests are one example.  In the medical benefits arena, HMOs have responded to the coming of Obamacare with the highest price increases since 2006,  Aetna had proposed increases of 25% for 2011, and then withdrew them. Middle class poverty is set to increase even for the older workers who have for a few decades been well off.
• Pillar 4 was public investment - infrastructure, low-cost, high-quality schools and universities, among many other things. These are getting cut everywhere. Higher education is being withdrawn right and left, if not in quantity then in quality. Students are paying more to get less, as public funding continues to plunge below historical norms. One cause is the Great Tax Shift from corporations and the wealthy to ordinary workers:

• Pillar 5 was the proverbial rule of law.  The most powerful members of society don't need rules or justice to protect them, since they have power. In contrast, the middle class doesn't, and in the long run there is no middle class without accountability, due process, and equality before the law.  These are the only mechanisms that keep the middle class from getting crushed.  And yet, although the banking and mortgage industries destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth, much of it of ordinary investors, only one banker, Bernie Madoff, has gone to jail.  

Sorry, that's not quite true.  The UBS banker who blew the whistle on an international tax fraud conspiracy at UBS, Bradley Birkenfeld: He's in jail.

The protests in Wisconsin are a good start on a reaction to the attacks on all the pillars at the same time.  But they are only a start.

Krugman's False Options

I am SO behind on this blog.  the University version has taken over. As a down payment: Hunter Richards has a nice, digestible set of charts on the decline of what is sometimes called brain work in America...
on the decline of what is sometimes called brain work in America - and on the state of the labor market in general. They are worth going through one at a time.

They helped me think about what didn't like Krugman's Tale of Two Moralities column today. He describes the opposition to the Right's darwinism as this:

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

Mais non!  A major project for progressives is fix Krugman's incorrect alternative to the Right: it's not that the left wants safety nets, it's that the current accounting for value creation is completely distorted, leading to misappropriation of income in the first place.  Krugman's formulation guarantees that liberals / leftists will lose, since it grants the genesis claims of the Right and wants to weaken them.  It also guarantees the great divide he laments, not because the two sides have incommensurable premises, but because they have the same premise. No conservative has a reason to think of the left as having an alternative philosophy of labor and value that would actually change the position of regular people in society.  The alternative just seems like the "bleeding heart:" version of conservatives.

The year 2010 brought better alternatives for thinking about how to stabilize and grow the actual US workforce and I will get to these.

Why Is Economic Policy so Dumb?

To understand what is going on in England, the U.S., and France, one has to get past the politicians' self-serving mythology that the popular majority is childishly refusing to face economic reality.

The French national daily Libération published a poll conducted October 14-15 that showed an incredible 79% in favor of the Sarkozy government reopening negotiations with the unions about raising the retirement age. (Sarkozy administration intends to raise the age for minimal retirement eligibility from 60 to 62, while also raising the age for full retirement benefits from 65 to 67.)   Nearly 2/3rds opposed Sarkozy's policy of "firmness" in refusing to negotiate, a policy which led to the passage of Sarkozy's changes "by force" on Friday night (by a vote of 177 to 153).  At the same time, only 43% supported the withdrawal of reforms, and only 36% favored its suspension and future resubmission.  In short, the majority does not in fact oppose change, even change that means a lower standard of living. But a 4/5s majority does opposed change imposed  by oligarchic decree. 

A hallmark of the French protests has been extraordinary participation of young people, who have  marched and shut down may high schools and unversities around the country.  What were the students’ doing out there with the middle-aged truckers and office workers?  Part of it was that the young want to retire older people so their jobs can be handed down in the normal manner - there was some self-interest (and economic rationality in the classic sense).  But like nearly all French people, the young oppose government by decree. They are also sick and tired of the general deterioration in the public sector that includes educational systems under constant, brainless pressure.  Victor Colombani, the president of the Union nationale Lycéenne (UNL), age 16, told Libération that high schools, the universities, public transport, the refineries, are all in the same mess.  The Sarkozy government, like most others in the West, is taking excellent care of its banks, major corporations, and high net worth individuals who dislike paying taxes, and doing as little as possible for everyone else.  French students marched about retirement because they don’t want what their elders are dishing out, which is a second-class deal for them.

One of the crucial facts of the post-2007 era is that market capitalism's social narrative now leads down instead of up.  The Reagan-Thatcher era, and its Giscard-Chiracian echo in France, promised wealth and health to regular people in exchange for abandoning the social democracy that had built their middle class societies and their own security within them.  When Thatcher sold Council housing to ordinary buyers, she was handing out public resources for the personal enrichment of les petits gens who had been given a decent life but never personal wealth by state-sponsored social development from the 1930s through the 1970s.  That would now change, in the Reagan-Thatcher narrative, as they borrowed against the rising value of their now-private home to buy a vacation condo in Spain, trips to Greece and Morocco on new low-cost nonunionized airlines, and grew their financial wealth through investment instruments like mutual funds that had barely existed in LBJ's Great Society.  But since 2007, Reagan and Thatcher's conservative (and centrist) descendants invoked market needs to continue to lower the standard of living of a majority already hammered by the loss of jobs, health insurance, and homes - nearly 3 million lost to foreclosure in the U.S. in 2009, and at least that many again in 2010.  We are looking at the ongoing shrinkage of the US middle class, typified by the continuing increase in home losses even during the "recovery" - up 25% from August 2009 to August of this year. Republicans are continuing to respond to asset deflation by wanting more cutting of taxes at the top.   Hello new dark pools of financial toxins, and ongoing non-punishment for banking fakery of various kinds.

Since they are now dishing out decline and decay, leaders in all three countries are struggling to muster approval ratings that stay above 33%, never mind achieving actual majority support.  Obama is still the strongest at 45%, though on a steady drift downward, according to Gallup.  Cameron's conservatives have a one-point vote advantage over Labour (at 41%) in a forced-choice party face-to-face that artificially inflates approval.  When people are asked about specific policies, he does worse. After he announced his massive cuts, Cameron's ratings fell 11% in one day;  Lord Browne's closely-aligned proposal to eliminate public funding for all non-science teaching in British universities got only 37% (still suprisingly high, since cheap higher ed is still the only reliable foundation of a majority middle-class society). France's Sarkozy fell below 30% for his  "firmness" in opposition to weeks of blockages and marches that brought millions of people into the streets. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger held the state budget hostage -- furloughing tens of thousands of state workers and stopping payments to state vendors -- for 3 months late in order to force huge public pension concessions on top of his all-cuts budget policy, and earned himself record popularity lows - 23%, 17%, then 15% in mid September.

Major leaders are imposing economic policies that are frankly unpopular, and which don't actually work.   Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, Yves Smith, Simon Johnson - one can find a host of center-liberal economists denouncing the austerity "fad," as Krugman put it, as having "no basis in reality."  I used to liken Arnold Schwarzenegger to Herbert Hoover, but Hoover has now become the national metaphor for the death-trip financial policies the population is subjected to in Greece Spain, the U.K, the U.S., and elsewhere - or his Treasury Secretary Andrew "liquidate everything" Mellon, or the U.K's Snowden budget of 1931, which Krugman invokes.  And yet these leaders carry on - socialist governments in Greece and Spain alongside conservative governments in the U.K., Italy, Germany and France.

Why do leaders persist with these stupid, self-destructive economic policies? Here's my list, prompted in part by reading a good piece by the not-so-capitalist conservative political economist John Gray.

1.  frozen market ideology.  Gray identifies two ideas ruling the Cameron-Clegg coalition.  First, government reduces freedom while market increase it ("Both Cameron and Clegg have insisted that moving away from state provision is not just a matter of saving money: the result, they say, will be services that are more responsive to personal choice.) Second and more importantly, "there is no standard of fairness independent of the market."  Bailing out banks while firing hundreds of thousands of state workers isn't what it seems to be at first -- running society for the benefit of the economic top 1% or 0.1% of it -- but means stabilizing the market forces that liberate people to create new value, rather than helping the public employees who impede it.  Ideology is never undermined simply by its surreal irrelevance to  economic outcomes past and present.
2. Small elites in mass societies.  Gray observes, "As in the 18th-century elite politics analysed by Lewis Namier, British politics today is shaped by a handful of closely related people."   Political parties in the US, France, the UK, and most other Western democracies have become duocracies of center-left/center-right parties controlled by fairly small circles of people. Note the history of the Democrat party under Clinton or New Labour under Blair.  As modern societies have become larger and radically more diverse, their ruling groups have paradoxically become more self-regarding and self-contained.  (See Blair's accounts of his oddly isolating rituals of political reflection at the link above).
3. The God that Failed.  Political leaders have a natural investment in believing that they have healed market capitalism, but it remains in crisis.  It continues to rest on government life support - nearly-free money for guaranteed loan spreads, fictional "mark-to-mythology" accounting on toxic instruments that pospones lossses, and endless forgiveness for the most basic corrupt errors like the failure to verify forceclosure documents that has called the whole mortgage industry into question in the US - if anyone in government cared to question, which in Obama's case it does not.  It is to be expected that in the midst of confusion, leaders cling to familiar ideas, even as they continue to fail.
4. A Radioactive Media.  The major media routinely bombards any heterodoxic interpretation with fata doses of scorn when it mentions them at all.  The result is that novel accounts are defined in advance for the viewer as marginal, biased, and self-interested, the view of someone who has a particular ax to grind.  Even orthodox views that counter the conventional wisdom, like those of the NYU business school professor Nouriel Roubini before the crash, based on intelligent pro-market skepticism about the valuations of complex securities, were shunned until it was too late, and now identified with Roubini as an individual celebrity, a kind of novelty show.  Regular coverage remains captured by a combination of economic orthodoxy and panic politics. The latter is instanced by the apparent influence of the clearly incoherent and unstable rantings of Glenn Beck.   Much has been written about the tight  grip of the boardroom over major media, largely owned or controlled by billionaire friends of Nicholas Sarkozy in France and by Fortune 500 corporations in America, to say nothing of Rupert Murdoch's global empire, who likened  the Tories's 20% one-year cuts in government to adults administering medicine to children.  The main point here is that the flourishing of diverse opinions on the Internet does not counter the narrowness of the major media, for  the Internet is cast in the role of the permanent opposition, always outside looking in, an accumulation of minority voices easily branded in any given case as extreme. The media famously does not support the kind of public sphere that allows ruling opinions to be debated and changed.  Change is possible, and there is no shortage of good ideas, but in this system, change may be delayed indefinitely, and to the point where it comes too late - as for millions of owners of overpriced homes.
5. Military Dominance.  During the Bush Jr. Administration, the War on Terror successfully replaced the Cold War as the justification for both continuous international intervention and unlimited military spending.  Military spending doubled in the U.S. in constant dollars in the 2000s.  The economist Joseph Stiglitz has revised his estimates of the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from $3 trillion to something like $4-6 trillion.  This spending on the control of perpetual threats is making social spending impossible, including the basic infrastructural renewal on which U.S. market capitalism in fact depends.  One of Obama's central failures has been his continuation of the instruments, the goals, and the spending that goes with the War on Terror. Under these irrational conditions, scial stagnation is the best case scenario. 
6. Adherence to Minority Rule.  For me, this is the key ingredient of the whole paralytic system.  Reagan and Thatcher were appalled by the challenges to traditional rule posed by antiwar protests, civil rights movements, and the rise of visible cultural minorities be they punk rockers in Birmingham or Jamaician construction workers in East London.  They and their descendents have worked tirelessly to insure that the political majority would never again have the economic independence to support such widespread dissent. They noticed that many of the protesters came from prosperous families, were in good universities, and were forming alliances with the less fortunate, as with for example the college "Freedom Riders" who went to help Black churches and other groups with voting rights and desegregation in the US South. Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the county seat near where three of these Northern civil rights workers -- one black, two white -- were murdered in 1964.  Reagan praised "states rights," which was a synonym not only for racial segregation but for minority rule. Desegregation ended this most famous version of minority rule. The Right has been working steadily to replace it ever since.  
7. Upward Redistribution of Wealth.  The inequality boom has expressed minority rule on the level of economics.  There are numerous studies that show the same shift of wealth from bottom and middle to the top - especially the very top (0.1%, 0.01%). Wolff has one good paper, Saez, often working with Piketty, has another, and the Associated Press had a nice overview a while back.  A Pew-Brookings study in 2008 found that the wages of males are now about 12% lower than they were for their fathers a generation earlier, taking an obvious bite out of ordinary people's economic independence.  The Supreme Court decision taking limits off political spending has forged a direct short circuit between extraordinary wealth and political control. 

In short, the economic decline were are facing is a sign of ideological disarray in a political world controlled by conservative ideology for two generations, but it is also programmed within modern conservatism.  Cameron and Osborne inherent this from Reagan and Thatcher.  Governments have no idea how to stimulate innovation and growth.  That would require two things -- some kind of industrial policy if not actually state capitalism Chinese style (the model that did best during the crisis), and a redistribution of wealth back downward, in the name of efficiency, to the people who largely created it in the first place.

The slow impoverishing of the economic majority has been going on for thirty years, and it has become cultural common sense even for its victims.  It has now reached the turning point, a moment of acceleration in which a return to prosperity becomes increasingly difficult.  The only bright spot is that an increasing number of commentators are starting  to trace the unjust and also grotesquely inefficient boom in inequality to a deliberate strateg (e.g. James Kwak at the Baseline Scenario's  good recent entry on the 1970s. But given what I believe to be the profound ambivalence of political and business leaders towards mass prosperity, I see little in established opinion that will convince them to work consistently towards a broad-based recovery. Where is the great economic majority, demanding that politics serve majoritarian economic interests?

This is really too bad for Obama personally, since he hitched his fortunes to that Democratic assumption of the greater good, so often honored in the breach.  This is what Republicans are calling "socialist" in this fairly conservative pro-bank president: the very idea of mass benefit, one so broad as to only be possible through government-led development.

Obama's only chance to succeed is to give a major speech in the next two weeks.  The speech would have to take on the charge of socialism, and say yes, social democracy built our prosperous Western societies (along with much less savory forces), and now my opponents have come to take all that away from you.   He would have to point out that the Right  replaced prosperity rooted in general provision -- low fees in publicly-funded universities, for example -- with prosperity rooted in private property ownership -- that they replaced a grounding in government with a grounding in market-based exchange values. As a result, he would point out, asset inflation and personal debt have become the two pillars of middle-class living after broad improvement in wages ended, coincidentally enough, around 1980.  In addition, the ground rules of this prosperity are now controlled not by elected leaders but by an opaque labyrinth of banking and quasi-banking institutions, from mutual funds to mainline banks to hedge funds. Obama would have to say that even specialists know little about the condition of this system at any given moment, for its essential nature is to be proprietary, to hoard information, and to create losers in every transaction by selling at an advantage.  He would have to say that political leaders have no independence from this system, that his own failure to stimulate anything except banking has abundantly shown this.

Obama would have to make an updated class argument - and a plain argument for democracy-based intervention in the economy.  That is the sole means through which he can save the U.S. from a Republican 2010-12 that will accelerate the disaster, reach out to desperate Tea Partiers, and help people believe that their ideas about a better economic system might actually matter. It is the U.S.'s only chance for short-term public economic intelligence. 

But what, short of a sudden meltdown in the markets, would get Obama to do this?  What would get him to call out his own economic majority?

Democracy vs. Finance, Governments vs. Progress

Markets are supposed to create rigor and discipline, to reflect economic reality.  In this standard view,  the public is seen as self-serving and self-deluded about economic reality.  Governments that reflect the wishes of their majorities are almost by definition going to impose inefficient, nostalgic policies suited to a bygone age that discourage their population from adapting to the economic needs of today.  Democratic governments are seen as dangerous for the economy.  This is why "central bank independence," which is seen as the prerequisite to central bank reliability, means independence from both popular desires and from democratic representatives like the U.S. Congress.

Is this how things really work?  The economist Mark Weisbrot has a nice summary of the European crisis that suggests not.  First on markets:

"the markets" can't seem to decide what they want from these governments in order to love them again. Two weeks ago the euro was plummeting because the financial markets wanted more blood: they wanted Greece, Spain, Portugal, and the other currently victimised countries of Europe (Italy and Ireland) to commit to more spending cuts and tax increases. Then they got what they wanted, and within a day or two, the euro started crashing again because "the markets" discovered that these pro-cyclical policies would actually make things worse in the countries that adopted them, and reduce growth in the whole eurozone.

Markets are pushed by investing institutions, which are fairly close to a global monoculture of neoclassical economic orthodoxy.  So austerity is always job 1.  But orthodoxy recognizes contraction and that austerity policies can make contraction worse.  Markets are ruled by an economic orthodoxy that is contradictory and pushes investors in different directions.

Similarly, here's Weisbrot on governments:

Unfortunately the European authorities – especially the European Central Bank – are even worse than the markets. They are less ambivalent and more committed to punishing the weaker economies by having them cut spending even if it causes or deepens recession and mass unemployment (over 20% in Spain).  . . .

There is a class dimension to all of this, with the EU authorities and the bankers united in wanting to balance the books on the backs of the workers – and adopt "labour market reforms" that will weaken labour and redistribute income upward for generations to come. The EU authorities and financiers believe that real wages must fall quite sharply in these countries in order to make them internationally competitive – but the protesters are responding with a fiscal version of "No justice, no peace".

In short, "markets"  change their minds every few days about the necessary medicine because they really have no idea how to develop economies.  Governments are now devoted to de-developing their populations: lower wages is a euphemism for increased poverty.

Economists aren't doing much better, for the most part.  Writing in the Financial Times on June 1, the prescient critic of finance Nouriel Roubini contradictorily calls  for "radical reform of finance" and for Europe to "deregulate" and "liberalise."  And Weisbrot calls for an end to the Euro so that countries like Greece can rebalance by deflating a national currency, rather than calling for EU-based economic re-development.

The only way out is to start by recognizing that markets seek to make money for the people who invest in markets, and do not seek to develop economies. This will help keep governments from catering to them, and impoverishing their populations in the process.  It will also relegitimize popular economic demands, which are in fact closer to developmental wisdom than are the self-serving calculations of investors and the central banks who set things up for them.

Democratic theory presumes the long-term wisdom of the deliberative majority. Finance -- via its economic theorists -- has declared itself to be the great exception to democracy, and remains the area in public life where frankly anti-democratic, elitist  theory flourishes.  It drags public policy in its wake, and in spite of lucid mass hostility to banks, has intimidated and paralyzed the popular reimagination of economics.  This has set up a kind of ancien regime within democracy as such. In the arena of financial capitalism, democracy has been effectively canceled.

Either we democratize finance with a basis in a coordinated retheorization of it or Europe and the US will keeping heading straight the poorhouse.

Contradiction in Obama's Economic Philosophy

Commenting on Obama's health care 'summit,' Krugman identifies the pattern that dominates health care and pretty much everything else in national politics: "Democrats [offer] moderate plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and Republicans [respond] with slander and misdirection."

Why do we see this same pattern of compromising Dims and savage Cons year in and year out?  One theory is that the Dims are actually Cons and so by losing to the Cons can get what they secretly want.  This theory works some of the time. But it doesn't explain the Dims tolerance for highly-visible losses, which are supposedly a bad thing. 

Another theory is that the Dims are not really Cons, especially in the sense that they are basically nice, humane people unlike Cons and therefore don't fight to kill and win. They actually like compromise, believe in everyone getting along, have faith in the high road, etc.  This theory is also more than partly true.

This blog has long interested itself in what allows people to formulate a strong position and then actually achieve it. This is equivalent in our terms to avoiding the pursuit of decline and failure, which has become so common in the vast but shrinking middle rungs of American society.

One central precondition is intellectual coherence.  Obama's political weakness is related to the fact that he lacks this.  His health care proposal, weak as it is, assumes an expanded role for government in the delivery of health care.  This in turn assumes that government plays a necessary regulative role in a market-based system dominated, to majoritarian distress, by a small number of large and powerful corporations.  This regulative role further assumes that government is a positive and constructive force in negotiating society's relationships with private entities like Blue Cross.

How does this fit with Obama's overall economic approach?  In a speech to the Business Roundtable last March, Obama offered a good summary of his economic philosophy, so to speak:

I’ve always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. It has been and will remain the very engine of America’s progress — the source of a prosperity that has gone unmatched in human history. I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs like you who are willing to take risks on a good idea. And I believe that our role as lawmakers is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle the market, but to strengthen its ability to unleash the creativity and innovation that still makes this nation the envy of the world.

But I also know this: Throughout our history, there have been times when the market has fallen out of balance. There have been moments of economic transformation and upheaval when prosperity and even basic financial security have escaped far too many of our citizens. And at these moments, government has stepped in not to supplant private enterprise, but to catalyze it — to create the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and ultimately to thrive.

That’s why we laid down railroads and highways to spur commerce and industry — to stitch this nation together. That’s why, even in the midst of civil war, Lincoln launched a transcontinental railroad, and Land Grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences. That’s why we initiated universal public high schools and passed a GI bill to nurture the skills and talents of all our workers. That’s why Eisenhower built an interstate highway system, and Kennedy pointed us to the moon, knowing that the exploration would lead to unimagined innovations here on Earth.

That’s what we’ve done in the past. And that’s why I’ve chosen to address education, health care, energy and this budget — because we can’t wait to make the investments today that will lead to tomorrow’s prosperity.

Such thoughts are why Cass Sunstein called Obama a "Chicago School Democrat" - the market creates all wealth, except when the market fails, at which point government must fix the market.  This also a "public private partnership" (PPP) philosophy, similar to that espoused by Blair and Brown Labour in the UK.

Unfortunately, Obama's position -- a common one among centrist Dim and Labour elements --  makes neither political nor conceptual sense.  If the market fails with any kind of regularity, then government is also a source of wealth and value. If government is a source of wealth and value, then the market is not the dominant if not the only source of wealth and value.  In the case of health care, if the market is the very engine of American progress, then America's free market system that has placed such enormous profits in the hands of HMOs and insurance corporations has been an amazing success, and we should not now be talking about bringing government in to regulate it.  Cons take continuous advantage of Obama's awkward stance.

The political problem with Obama's position is similar. How can he rally a mass base by chiding Wall Street bankers one day and praising their wealth the next? How can he be taken seriously by saying business should run the economy and then invoking the railroads to say government should help run health care?  The scope and timing of intervention is also always at issue, and you need some coherent principles to decide when and where.

The obvious solution is for Obama to say loudly and often that "government creates wealth" - in exactly the ways he describes in his speech, with quality education being at the heart of value-creation along with universal health care.   Society creates wealth, and government is one instrument and business is another, and in a democracy society gets to decide the scale and scope of the various instruments.  Government and businesses are co-generators, which means that public investments should be both ackowledged and compensated - which would reduce profits for companies that have gotten used to getting all sorts of public stuff for next to nothing, and would challenge American capitalism as it is, which of course Obama has to do if he wants a real recovery, except he thinks we already have one.

Obama's intellectual failure to expound a coherent social-democratic vision of society, which would also be post-capitalist in the sense of being post our inefficient, wasteful, crooked, silly current version of capitalism will, if it continues,  be yet another source of his political failure.

Monopoly Endgame and Middle-Class Decline

Yesterday the NYT ran a very good piece on the rise in the long-term unemployed. One of the featured people is Jean Eisen, out of work for two years. A former comic, she's turned to Christianity because prary offers the kind of health insurance she can afford.

Twice, Ms. Eisen exhausted her unemployment benefits before her check was restored by a federal extension. Last week, her check ran out again. She and her husband now settle their bills with only his $1,595 monthly disability check. The rent on their apartment is $1,380.

“We’re looking at the very real possibility of being homeless,” she said.

The piece states the clear implication:

Every downturn pushes some people out of the middle class before the economy resumes expanding. Most recover. Many prosper. But some economists worry that this time could be different. An unusual constellation of forces — some embedded in the modern-day economy, others unique to this wrenching recession — might make it especially difficult for those out of work to find their way back to their middle-class lives.

And also offers a more candid-than-usual explanation of why:

Large companies are increasingly owned by institutional investors who crave swift profits, a feat often achieved by cutting payroll. The declining influence of unions has made it easier for employers to shift work to part-time and temporary employees. Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 — the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.

“American business is about maximizing shareholder value,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics. “You basically don’t want workers. You hire less, and you try to find capital equipment to replace them.”

Jobs used to grow at a 3.5% rate each year. After 1980, they grew during expansions at under 1% a year.  To make the point as directly as possible, U.S. economic leaders shifted the conditions of revenue growth so that they depended on the reduction of employment growth.  In other words, U.S. expansions become almost-jobless recoveries by design.   The actually jobless recovery after 2003 under George W. Bush was the holy grail of this economic policy.

The Obama Administration is doing what it can to draw a somewhat bent line from Bush to Hooverization.   Its money goes to big banks not small ones, who are not lending to the small businesses that produce the vast majority of new jobs in any recovery.  (See my Capitalist Pal on this crowding out.)  Small business is not recovering, and employment will recover that much more slowly.  Strategic sectors like green energy are on the ropes.  The federal stimulus will not rebuild enough of the crumbling country by in the process hire the hundred thousand a month required just to keep unemployment in place.   Instead, its unemployment bill will mushroom, as people are paid not to work on public projects but because they can't find work. Cash-starved governments will try to contain the mushrooming bill by throwing people off of "safety-net" programs that include welfare: "as of 2006, 44 states cut off anyone with a household income totaling 75 percent of the poverty level — then limited to $1,383 a month for a family of three."  The effect here obviously is to insure that welfare leads to paralyzing, unhealthy poverty.

It's all getting to be too much even for some of the Summers-Rubin Lexus worshipping fans of unhinged business.  Tom Friedman's column is titled "The Fat Lady Has Sung," and has the quip that sums up pretty much everything.

But now it feels as if we are entering a new era, "where the great task of government and of leadership is going to be about taking things away from people," said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. 

Ms. Eisen's life story is a history of So. Cal deindustrialization, as she energetically jumps from one industry to the next with a cheery entrepreneurial spirit, only to see that entire industry die or get sent abroad (aerospace, a travel agency, then beauty product sales . . .)

The worst comes nearly last.  Another successfully member of the middle class who hasn't been able to find a job in two years remarks, "“What is going to happen? . . .I worry about my kids. I just don’t want them to think I’m a failure.”  The worst is that many of those on the front lines of middle-class decline don't see the structural problems.  It's hard to imagine, given the incredibly low mental level of most US media, that they ever will.  But without a reason or a will to revolt against this dead-end system, all they can do is spiral wagewise to the bottom.

There's a direct connection between the U.S.'s monopoly-prone economy and wage / employment decline.  It won't change unless members of the ex-middle class start to realize the removing jobs has for thirty years been the U.S. economy's dominant recipie for revenue success.

The Era of Permanent Discontent

Thanks to Juan Cole for writing up the Top-10 "worst things about the wretched period" of the 2000s - for me the Top-10 signs of decline.  Yes, it was a truly bad start to the new millennium for which we have many dumbass electorates and self-serving elites to thank.  The decades' leaders replaced negotiation with belligerence wherever they found it convenient to them - really, with Iraq, whenever it felt right.  The same goes with finance now and the end - Cole's top 1% who reaped 2/3rds of the gains of the 2000s are getting a free pass from the Obama admin to do as they like.  The same goes with the environment, where the failure of Copenhagen to produce targets and timetables in an utterly quantified management culture that responds only to these will mean the reinflation of fossil fuel use - oil sands, clean coal, the whole 9 yards.

The decade began the Era of Permanent Discontent.  There were mass protests and opposition to policies like the Iraq war that political and business leaders systematically ignored.  Individuals like Dick Cheney were more openly contemptuous of public opinion than others, but it's hard to think of a national or state-level leader who has recently opposed his or her small inner circle or the Ring of Lobbyists - on any issue in order to back a majority view.

Continuing the cycle, obvious rejection of popular positions then produce further protests and widening gap between leaders and the vast majority they claim to lead.  Polling data picked it up: rulers implemented positions accepted by a minority of the public, and this is happening again with the health care "reform," where a "clear marjority" wants a public option (October 2009, December 2009), and where political leaders don't, and so there won't be one. In Europe they call this "post-democracy." In California, it is called minority rule, and a UC professor George Lakoff has started an initiative to end the Proposition 13-based supermajority rule for budgeting and taxes.  This is a great idea. But it needs to confront an electorate that has no experience with or trust in real majority rule.

The twin of permanent discontent is Permanent War.  Bush's "war that will go on for years" has become Obama's Afghanistan escalation and similar rhetoric of standing, dispersed dangers to global security.  Apparently no American executive can govern without Cold War-style insistence that the country is in grave danger from all over.  The benefits to the military and industry are obvious, and so are the benefits to executive authority.  Obama's Wars now involve escalating the drone attacks and secret military incursions into Pakistan that echo the Nixon-Kissinger incursions into Laos and Cambodia that hardened and widened the Vietnam war that they too claimed to be winding down.  In the context of majority demands for public health care, better infrastructure, cheaper higher education, green technology, more and better jobs, war has an important role to play.  The function of war i to make all popular things impossible.

It's worth nothing that finance has come to play a similar spoiling role. Its absorption of somewhere between $17 and 24 trillion has already killed off any new New Deal for the states and their outmoded intrastructures and social systems (the US ranks 12th to 16th in the social distribution of its own core technologies, broadband access).  Finance is increasingly acknowledged to invest largely in unproductive assets, so it's not like we need its domination over the economy because they are about to give back to society - give back new industries, high productivity growth, better living for all.

But the financial sector is good for the political executive function. It concentrates wealth and concentrates the power that goes with it.  Wall Street's importance magnifies Washington's importance, and the leaders of each get enormous personal benefit from the acute stratification of their sector, where all meaningful decisions are made at the top.  The concentration of finance into a few banks that are too big to fail is also good for the military, which operates on the same principle.  Having a superconcentrated financial sector run by insiders has long stabilized corrupt, crony-ridden governments in places like South Korea and Japan. It provides the same function in the United States.

The epoch battle now shaping up is between innovation and control.  Concentration and hierarchy are good for control and bad for innovation.  You can't spread broadband across income groups if you can't distribute and share because your broadband industry is a plutonomy of interlocking monopolists.  But most of our innovation industries, starting with IT, have become oligarchies built up around monopoly rents, and the innovation economist David Mowery has pointed out that software developed with market shares of 80 percent at home and 65% abroad (p 14).  Innovation depended on acquiring monopoly control in the post-war market environment - and on large amounts of military funding.

Where are the forces of innovation that can do without this kind of control?  Mostly lodged in our permanent discontent.  My hope - and fear - is that they will remain dormant until they enter into open revolt against the control-focused governance that now pervades every corner of politics and the economy.

In 1009, Egypt's Fatimid caliph al-Hakim leveled Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the ground. He then "hacked the church's foundations down to bedrock."  The church was rebuilt in 1048, but it's initial destruction became the cornerstone of the crusade preaching of the Catholic Church. His successor would rebuild the church ing 1048, but Hakim's rash act stirs demands in Europe for a Christian crusade to recover the Holy Land from the "infidels." In 1096, the First Crusade would leave Europe for the Holy Land with more than 30,000 men, and would crystallize the anti-Islamic hostilities and salvific-warrior mentalities that seek to control our destiny today, a thousand years down the road.

Dissociation in a Bad Decade

A few posts this week get close to the heart of the problem.  Fr. Frank's Sunday sermon provides the frame - "As we say farewell to a dreadful year and decade," we have to recognize the following:

The men who played us for suckers, whether at Citigroup or Fannie Mae, at the White House or Ted Haggard’s megachurch, are the real movers and shakers of this century’s history so far.

Fr. Frank replaces Time Man of the Year Ben Bernanke - "as big a schnook as every other magical thinker in Washington" with Tiger Woods, the age's typical con man who piles up tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth with a skill base prosthetically extended via an image fabricated by extremely expensive media machinery that is at complete odds with reality.

This blog's technical term for the state of mass suckerdom has been dumbness.  This is a word I also use for dissociation, the systematic though often unconscious concealment of intersubjective reality behind a screen image of the real.

The most effective means is obviously the mass media in general and its hyperdeveloped skill at producing idealized simulacra of reality - simulacra so perfectly cleansed of anomalies that they fit the definition of hysteria.  The source is often a trauma. Thinking of US history in general and of 9/11 in particular, I would say that dissociation is a response to a trauma that suppresses the subject's own role in having produced the trauma.

Everyday examples of dissociation can be found in Fr. Frank's descriptions of hero-worshipping of male sports stars and of faith in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  The other huge example that we're very much living with is the securities industry, in which values for securities that brokers made up were assigned through exchanges via mimetic thinking and mutually reinforcing professional networks.

Fr. F rightly starts the dismal decade with the Enron scandal rather than 9/11: 2001 was the year in which its "assets" came gradually to be seen as accounting fabrications.  He gets good play out of the accounting firm Accenture's use of Tiger Woods as its sole emblem of all things virile and triumphant, and then its attempt to scrub Tiger Woods from every piece of company material as though the relationship never existed.  Fr. Frank doesn't mention that "Accenture" was the name that emerged when accounting giant Arthur Andersen had to scrub itself out of existence as the disgraced accounting firm for Enron Inc.

There is an Orwellian aspect to these total reversals: we worship Tiger Woods; we look down on Tiger Woods.  Enron is America's most innovative company; Enron is America's most fraudulent company.  As an educator, I notice first and foremost the absence of learning.  We just go onto the next thing: from Enron's "special purpose entities" to Lehman's "structured investment vehicles," from day-trading in equities to zero-down real estate investing.  The pattern is reinforced by our leaders, who depend on it to maintain their own position.  A recent example was Obama's justification of the escalation in Afghanistan by trying to suffocate reflection with a thick blanket of primal innocence: "unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination."

In his amazing novel 2666, one of Roberto Bolano's main characters, a Spanish specialist in German literature and in particular the works of the elusive Archimboldi, returns to his hotel room in a Mexican border town, puts down

rugs on the bed he didn't sleep in, then . . . sat on his bed and for a fraction of a second the shadows retreated and he had a fleeting glimpse of reality.  He felt dizzy and he closed his eyes. Without knowing it he fell asleep.

Why are we still sleeping?

The effect of the Big Sleep appears in another great framing moment, Glenn Greenwald's continuation of his critique of the Obama administration on health care. He argues that Obama is systematically continuing Clinton's Third Way, which Greenwald defines as corporatism.

It's about more than just letting corporations do what they want.  It's about affirmatively harnessing government power in order to benefit and strengthen those corporate interests and even merging government and the private sector.  In the intelligence and surveillance realms, for instance, the line between government agencies and private corporations barely exists.  Military policy is carried out almost as much by private contractors as by our state's armed forces.  Corporate executives and lobbyists can shuffle between the public and private sectors so seamlessly because the divisions have been so eroded.  Our laws are written not by elected representatives but, literally, by the largest and richest corporations.  At the level of the most concentrated power, large corporate interests and government actions are basically inseparable.

The health care bill is one of the most flagrant advancements of this corporatism yet, as it bizarrely forces millions of people to buy extremely inadequate products from the private health insurance industry -- regardless of whether they want it or, worse, whether they can afford it (even with some subsidies).

Greenwald is right about this "centrist" Democrat philosophy, and about its authoritarian overtones. It's also important to figure out where this corporatism comes from.  Part of it is the media simulacra, of course, providing all the comforts of Babyland for an infantile population.  The deeper harder part comes from systematic and self-protective dissociation from anything that conflicts with an airbrushed image of America that helps us all confront absolutely nothing the country or its leaders actually do - like "seeking world domination" around financial markets, military power, UN climate policy, and so on.

The area where the country's middle classes are being continuously damaged is finance itself.  The financial system created untold trillions of dollars of assets that its own participants determined in the summer and fall of 2008 to be worth little or nothing.  Collapse was averted because governments led by the US Treasury and the Fed stepped in to provide unconditional guarantees that these assets would be worth close to face value.  This was the importance of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's "giveaway" (also here, here and here) of 100 cents on the dollar to AIG's counterparties. Even if it wasn't a giveaway, it signaled Total Commitment to whatever fictions finance had been using to pile it high and deeper.  In other words, to avoid collapse, the feds supported dissociation.  This meant the rapid forgetting of what we had momentarily learned about the non-value of financial values through their real support with taxypayer-supplied direct payments, loans, and guarantees. The forgetting continues to this day, when it is hard to find any commentary on the problem assets that remain on everybody's books, because we are now dissociatively engaged in an economic recovery.

How do we make it stop? The old Left mechanism was the exposure of false consciousness through immiseration.  The lie of prosperity (for the large majority) would be exposed through the truth of suffering.

We have plenty of suffering in the dying states.  In the Left Business Observer, Doug Henwood writes,

According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, one in three U.S. households reports that a member lost a job over the past year. The effects: 90% report higher personal stress; 62%, anger; 58%, depression.  That translates into 83 million Americans experiencing stress; 58 million, anger; and 52 million, depression, as the result of recen job loss. Not quite four in ten of the job losers report having foudn a new job - and of those who do, half say it's for less pay.  For those unable to find a new job, the emotional effects are severe: 70% are depressed.

The obvious problem is that suffering that leads to depression doesn't lead to change.  Anger is more useful, but can easily be reversed into depression, particularly in a culture like that of the U.S. in which everyone is held personally responsible for failure and there are no structural problems really or exploitative ruling classes etc etc - except the ones you see when you are really angry, and then even your friends avoid you for being the loser you are.

The Left is not doing well right now in defining a new architecture for a egalitarian economy that develops the whole society. It also needs to do better at confronting the psychological blockage to imagining what that would be, starting with acknowledging our own role in getting us here.  I think the key to ending dissociation is ending the threat of being a loser by confronting the fact that in the current situation that is exactly what nearly all of us are.