Ben, Welcome to the Lake.

David, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Hello, Bev and David and all. I’m delighted to be here.

Thanks, Ben, for this important book and discussing it here today. One question to start things off–the book produced a great deal of evidence that on most issues regarding economic inequality the R–D gap was quite minor. In the inequality survey, was there any area where this wasn’t true–where we could still see a notable partisan gap on issues related to economic inequality?

Hi, David. The book focuses on areas of agreement: the many egalitarian policies on which majorities of Republicans and higher-income people agree with majorities of Democrats and lower-income people.
But this does not mean they agree about everything/. On most policies MORE Dems than Reps favor the policies. Sometimes by quite a bit. The policy areas with the biggest differences are Health Care and Taxes

More about agreements and disagreements:
In Health Care, for exam;le 64% of all Americans, and a huge % of Dems, favor “national health insurance, which would be financed by tax money, paying for most forms of health care.” But only 45% of Republicans favor that. (p.66 of the book has a chart.)

Welcome to FDL this afternoon Ben.

I have not had an opportunity to read your book but it sounds from David’s introduction that it seems like the only folks who don’t understand that there has been and is a class war, would be the folks inside the beltway.

Given the apparent closeness between Democrats and Republicans (assuming self-confessed), why do you think so many people vote against their economic self-interests and keep electing anyone under the R banner (not to mention the Dem corporatists)?

Thanks! Your characterization of American public opinion is one of what you call “conservative egalitarianism”–conservative in certain principles, but committed to a variety of ‘operational’ liberal strategies to enhance equality of opportunity. I’d be interested to hear you say a bit more about this–would you characterize this as a coherent ideology centered on the notion of equality of opportunity, or are the different elements of conserative egalitarianism in direct tension with each other?

Or on taxes: 56% of all Americans say “Our governme nt should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.” This is rather amazing, given the anti-tax rhetoric among politicians! And it is up in the last few years. Still, only 39% of Republicans agree. (p.91)

People vote for lots of reasons, including “character” (or TV images of character that money can buy). The GOP has done well at that. And the Dems have suffered from unpopular stands on NON economic cultural issues, plus bad personal imagery. EG neither Gore nor Kerry looked like an average Joe. (Obama had a bit of that problem too, but he seems to have overcome it.)

Excellent question about “conservative egalitarianism.” The book fudges this a bit, but I think it is in fact a coherent philosophy. (Not just the old “abstract vs. concrete” business.) Americans really DO worry about waste of tax money; they really do like markets and frree enterprise; they believe in material incentives and a substantial amount of inequality to motivate work. Most of all, they believe in the American Dream of working hard and getting rich.
Policies win the most popular support when they take all of this into account: spend money wisely; use markets when helpful; and most of all, Help people achieve genuine equal opportunity.

If the poll was taken in 2007 has there been a out migration from the republican party since then that might make the differences greater today?

Welcome, Ben.

(I’m an NU alum from way back . . . Ken Janda is the only name I recognize on the PoliSci faculty roster!)

The statement above about work and compensation caught my eye:

“In order to get people to work hard, large differences in pay are necessary” (pg. 33)

Do you get into the question of CEO compensation, and the increasingly wide gap between a company’s general workforce and its senior management?

Let me say a word about the final question in David’s intro: Why don’t politicians enact these consensual policies on which citizens of all types (R & D, hi and low income, etc) agree?
Much of the answer surely has to do with the role of money in politics. The Very affluent have a lot of clout. And they (unlike our “higher-income” survey respondents, who are just the upper 1/4) often oppose taxes or any redistributive spending. Republican party activists, too; an amazingly reactionary bunch. The party has to rely on them to help win elections by turning out voters, ringing doorbells, manning the phone banks etc. The undemocratic aspects of American politics hurt egalitarian policy making.

I think I’m inclined to agree. There’s no reason to think the notion that unequal rewards produce productive and socially valuable hard work/competititon, and at the same time think that current levels of inequality go well beyond what is necessary to produce that value.

At the same time, I wonder if ‘our’ conservative egalitarianism doesn’t open us up to a high level of collective manipulation. The remarkable story of the long war on the estate tax springs to mind–pushing the right rhetorical buttons, as I recall, created (at least temporarily) enough ambiguity about the estate tax to put together support for its elimination.

Definitely “outmigration” (nice phrase) from the GOP since ‘07. Since the time of the survey the American public as a whole has become a bit more egalitarian, though these things change slowly; most of our numbers are probably very close to what they would be today. But you are right: the Republicans who are left probably look a bit different, more conservative. The party is in big trouble, in danger of becoming a regional remnant. Unless the Dems mess up….

I’ve been thinking about this too. I’d be very interested to see how the results of the inequality survey might turn out now, as our collective frustration with the overcompensation for the very rich has grown.

(and I see Ben has addressed this directly above)

Good to hear from a Wildcat. Ken Janda, though officially retired, is still a pillar at NU.
We got lucky on CEO compensation, asked several good questions before it become a hot issue. If you get a chance to look at the book, check out p. p38 and p42. It turns out that most Americans wildly underestimate the size of CEO’s salaries ($500k median guess, vs. $14 million actual for S&P 500 companies.) But even so, they want CEOs paid LESS and factory workers & clerks paid more.

That’s one think I think might have changed—I’d guess people might estimate CEO salaries higher now!

Manipulation of opinion is a very tricky issue, hard to pin down. In the Tax chapter (”Paying the Bill”) we show that most Americans are very confused about taxes. They don’t know, for example, that the income tax is still quite progression (hi income people pay much higher %) or that the sales tax is regressive.
I believe that Tax policy is a prime area for manipulation of opinion. Bush II was able to convince people that “every taxpayer” gained from his income tax cuts (payroll tax payers got nothing), and that the rich got more only because they paid more (the % of income they paid went down more than for others.)

Benjamin, David, thank you both so much for coming.

I apologize for not buying your book yet. El fundo’s a little low, but it’s on my list, because it’s such a critical topic about which to be fluent.

FWIW, and somewhat tangential, an interesting quote from GE’s Jack Welch in Business Week (April 2009)

“Shareholder value as a strategy is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy. :Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers, and your products”

You can say that again.

In the blogs at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, if I raise the issue of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, middle class people on the blog think I favor raising THEIR taxes.

Yes, more, but I’m afraid they still have little clue, eg about the five or so hedge fund managers who made more than $1 BILLION each in ‘07. That is far beyond the average person’s imagination.
In many cases where members of the public are unaware or confused, including this one I suspect that they are being deliberately misled. Or at least that the mainstream media don’t help much. Shouldn’t $1 billion incomes be subjects of a big story?

Agreed.

Nothing like weeks of front page stories about AIG execs lamenting the fact that they’ve been asked to return seven figure bonuses for raising the awareness of Wall Street compensation practices.

What else has jumped out at you after watching the news for the last six months — either that confirms what you’ve written or makes you wonder if something has changed?

Hey, don’t worry, I’m not in this for the money. On Amazon, though, the book is only $10.16!
Nice quote from Welch on “shareholder value.” One big issue is WHEN shareholders get value. The best companies think long term, retain earnings, innovate, and come out well in the long run. Somehow in the last couple of decades everybody got into a l”grab it now” mood.

Right, when you think of inequality as justified though producing socially/economically optimal outcomes, 1 billion dollar salaries become profoundly wasteful. Think how much more valuable work could be motivated by breaking that billion up into a thousand million dollar salaries!

I know this is tangential, but could you talk about where “homelessness” has stood in public opinion. When Reagan cut funding for say mental illness and other humanitarian services and thus the ranks of the homeless began to increase exponentially. And then later on when Clinton entered the White House and never uttered the word as far as I heard, which saddened me. Focusing on the homeless was not politically smart, not to give the perceived narcissistic public who would freak out that their hard earned dollars would go to the underclass and vote the other direction and maybe scream socialism (I do wonder how much people in America would poll on helping the homeless. More than one in the political class would think I would bet).

I held that against Clinton and wondered about American karma with that choice. And then Obama was pretty nervous talking about the underclass or lower class and a lot of his rhetoric was about protecting the middle class. And how refreshing when John Edwards was addressing the lower class, the homeless, homeless vets sleeping under bridges.

Yes, we have a Puritan ethic in this country. And a robustly vocal Christian coalition who ironically rally against the Golden Rule in terms of outer village empathy, taking care of our brothers and sisters in poverty. In mental illness.

Yes, recent news must surely have strengthened people’s outrage about inequality. AIG, Ponzi schemes, clueless bankers defending their bonuses…
I hope that Larry and I can repeat some of our survey questions soon. The usual media polls just don’t get very deeply into this topic. But I’ve learned over the years (eg in my “Rational Public” book, which is much more academically oriented) that public opinion about policy is surprisingly stable over time. It takes big events, eg wars, depressions, international crises, to have a big impact on opinion. We’ll see if this sinancial crash and recession is enough.

Hasn’t the shift been driven by fund managers.

One thing we do in “Class War?” is give a lot of quotes, including several from successful people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros. To a surprising extent they agree that vast sums of money are not necessary to get them to work hard (just a little more money than the other guy!). And many of them recognize the role of luck and/or privilege in their success. They favor quite a bit of government action to creat real equality of opportunity. Also to make the market work right.

Not sure what ylou mean by “the shift” being driven by fund managers. But yes:
1) the huge increase in income inequality since the ’70s mostly happened at the very top, and a handful of hedge fund managers are a significant part of it.
2) they have immense political clout, and not only within the GOP. The Goldman Sachs/ Robert Rubin proteges in the Obama administration (Summers, Geitner, Furman, Orzag) need close watching, in my opinion. Not clear that AIG really had to honor those bizarre CDS “insurance policies” at full face value, which hugely helped Goldman and other banks with strong government ties.

Like Gates, Buffet, and Soros, I’ve long been convinced that luck plays a much larger role in success and failure in our lives. I wonder if you think that view might play a role in bringing about more egalitarian policies. It seems at least somewhat in tension with some of the beliefs of conservative egalitarianism.

and maybe 3) hedge fund managers MAY have affected the current public outrage. But mostly they have been quiet. Some have done quite well. Most of the outrage has been against middle level investment bankers like the AIG “financial products” charlatans. And some has spilled over onto just plain bankers who don’t particularly deserve disdain. So far I am afraid that most people have missed key parts of the story, partly because it has not been told well/ clearly/ repeatedly.

From the post above:

They [The American people] remain suspicious that governments will spend our money well. But when our questioning moves from the realm of abstractions to specifics—health care, education, taxation, and the like, they seemingly abandon this conservatism and support action to reduce inequality. Page and Jacobs call this operational liberalism, which combined with philosophical conservatism yields a result they call ‘conservative egalitarianism.’

This reminds me of the classic scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, where the revolutionary leader is whipping up his troops: “What have the Romans ever done for us?” He gets a few unexpected replies: roads, the aqueducts, sanitation, . . . Finally, in exasperation, he shuts off the discussion: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

Specifics do have a nasty way of injecting reality into abstract discussions.

One more comment on hedge fund managers. My colleague Jeff Winters argues that American politics, on certain key issues (”sound” money, international trade, redistributive taxes), is dominated by an “oligarchy.” If so, I would nominate hedge fund managers, who shuffle many billions of dollars around the world and terrify presidents, as prime candidates to be oligarchs.

There is so much “mystification” in this culture about money. How Greenspan and Milton Friedman et al. got to such a guru status. How TARP money got to be “thrown” en masse to fix the problem to the supposed “fixers” (a/k/a “screwer-uppers”). So many of us bow down to the “authoritarian” will of those with money. Don’t even presume to monitor them. Though would have been nice to have a non-corrupt Congress and Pres doing it for us.

Here, I think, is where the “class war” rhetoric comes into play — as an inoculation against any who would question the oligarchy.

If “conservative egalitarianism” is central to the American ethos, it would make sense for the oligarchy to scream “class warfare!” whenever any attempts to rein them in are even discussed. After all, if the discussion can be preempted, then actions that might impinge on the activities of those at the top economically are prevented.

Absolutely right. I’ll take specifics over abstractions just about every time. As I mentioned to David, though, “conservative egalitarianism” is not really just a bundle of contradictions or a conflict between abstract and specific. I think it forms a coherent philosophy that is widely shared among Americans: insist that government be efficient, that it actually act for ordinary people (as vs pork for contractors), that people have freedom to achieve their best, that there not be too much red tape or bureaucracy, etc etc, all WHILE favoring egalitarian programs.
My advice to progressives is to push for programs that fit with both parts of conservative egalitarianism. That’s where maximum public support and maximum leverage over politicians can be achieved.

Yes. We spend a fair amount of time in the book pointing out examples of phony charges of “class war.” Those come from people opposed to even the mildest sort of redistributive or egalitarian programs.

You mentioned earlier you suspect the Republican party remains in pretty big trouble. I wonder how, if at all, you think the collapse of the republican party is likely to impact the policy future for economic inequality. If you colleague Winters is correct, it seems it might not be as important as we’d hope…

Yes, it is amazing to look back at the 1990s fawning over Rubin and Greenspan, the two individuals most culpable for the financial crash. (I’m afraid that Bill Clinton is not guiltless.) That Rubin connection is the thing that worries me most about Pres. Obama’s economic team.
Some friends tell me that Summers has changed (what, the Harvard experience softened him?), now he favors serious financial regulation, etc etc. We’ll see. Right now, my guess is that when the banks feel comfortable, they will say 1) no real change in regulation is needed; and 2) sorry, after the bailout there’s no money for health care or anything else. (And they will play the China card: tighten money or the Chinese will stop buying our bonds…)
If so, how will the administration react? Im nervous.

I wonder if the (understandable and in some ways laudable) concern about efficiency and waste in government spending doesn’t provide a wedge to turn people against economically progressive policies. In any large organization, not just government, you can find and identify some inefficiencies, which can then be highlighted and exaggerated by opponents of the policy.

On a local level, here in Washington State, I’ve seen anti-tax initiatives passed, some of which removed progressive taxation in a state with mostly regressive taxation, and it’s all justified on wasteful spending.

Alas, I’m afraid it’s true: complete rule by the Democrats would only modestly reduce inequality. This is a point on which I disagree with my friend Larry Bartels, who has a terrific (though dense and difficult!) book about the politics of inequality: “Unequal Democracy.”

Definitely true. It is easy to exaggerate govt waste (Reagan was a master) while ignoring corporate waste.
I see that as a reason to do two things:
1) fight back (eg by highlighting effective & successful programs);
2) be VERY careful to design and implement programs with maximum efficiency, minimum waste. So far the Obama administration has done that remarkably well even with the big, quick, unwieldly stimulus package. But get ready for a barrage of “waste” stories. (eg, preparing for a swine flue epidemic! Actual example from attacks on the stimulus a month or two ago.)

Another word on GOP troubles: I would not root for a total crash of the Republican Party. A moderate, inclusive GOP could be very helpful for American politics. But first the bitter-enders (especially hard line social conservatives) will have to be ousted from control. And that is unlikely to happen quickly. Perhaps not until a major realignment toward the Dems has occurred.
I see such a realignment as actually fairly likely, IF the Dems don’t mess up in the next couple of years. IF they get us out of the recession, IF they avoid disaster in Pakistan/ Afghanistan, IF they deliver on at least one or two major programs like Health Care and Energy Efficiency/ Climate change. Big IFs!

Thanks for the response.

There’s a difference between people who “insist that government be efficient” and those who believe as an article of political faith that it is inherent in the structure of government that it is inefficient. The GOP of the 21st century has taken itself way down that second path, which I believe is part of why they are so far out of power everywhere except the South — a region which has other reasons for disliking the federal government.

Consider the health care debate. Those who believe government is inherently inefficient seem to be setting the terms of the debate. Progressives who suggest looking at the efficiencies that a single payer system might produce are not even invited to give testimony at Congressional hearings.

The choice from the Right’s rhetoric is “Who do you want making your health care decisions: your doctor or a government bureaucrat?” The choice in reality, however, is between a private insurance company bureaucrat and a government bureaucrat. The economic incentives for private insurers are such that they are profitable when they deny care; the incentives for the government are such that they succeed when quality care is delivered.

The big issue here at FDL, is the TWELVE TRILLION that Summers and Bernanke are pushing into the insolvent money center banks. Jane has been great on covering this. Banksters are bankrolling the vichy dems and we’re all understandably afraid that the TWELVE TRILLION will be gone when the stimulus runs out in 2010.

There’s a fine line that needs to be walked which acknowledges that a) markets are valuable tools, and a potentially useful part of progressive policies and b) government is in no way inherently more inefficient than the market. These two views aren’t actually in conflict, but one can see why they might appear to be.

(sorry, I missed this one earlier)
We found a surpising amount of support for programs to help the poor (eg p.72.) Especially the big majority saying “government must see that no one is without food, clothing, or shelter.” A lot of the violent rhetoric about “welfare” has been tamed by welfare reform. Still resistance to guaranteed incomes, still some racist imagery about the poor, but Americans support minimum standards below which people should not be allowed to fall.
So: yes, I see plenty of public support for working to end homelessness.

A moderate, inclusive GOP could be very helpful for American politics.

Completely agree.

The metaphor I always use is Robert E. Lee surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomatox.

Jeff Davis and most of Lee’s generals wanted him to order the army to disband and carry on a guerilla war. There would have been a lot more James Younger gangs if Lee had obeyed Davis’ orders.

So much cronyism it seems, that group-think prevails in the old boys’ club. And Geitner seems like he’s not only drinking the kool-aid but swimming in a fish bowl of it, with all his chummy dinners at the Four Seasons with Goldman, etc., execs.

Why isn’t Krugman given more credence by this admin? And that Sheila Bair is it from the FDIC?

Someone said on fdl about tough love going to the autoworkers but not the banking industry and it should be going both places. Codependency prevails there and co-addiction is as dangerous as addiction.

“Trickle up” economics. Some magic!

And how much do the execs intend to re-trench. How many less trips to the spa? Ergo the bonus parachutes. It’s all relative and they need those 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+ figure numbers to keep them secure. And when they’re happy and secure, that is supposed to bring security to the rest of us. Is that how Congress sees it? Obama?

Whoa, GOP as Lee’s army? Interesting.

Well articulated, thank you.

I think there’s also a huge misapprehension that most markets contain competition. Everywhere oligopolies choke off competition and innovation. We need vigorous and intelligent anti-trust action along with strong oversite from responsible public servants. Global competition means we’re going to need some big institutions, but too big to fail is too big.

Thanks, you confirm what I have been thinking. I think Congress underestimates the willingness of the American people to support the “common good.”

One topic you don’t address much in the book is race. One way race becomes relevant is through the racialized discourse about (undeserving) racialized welfare recipients, “welfare queens” and so on. Through this discourse support for policies that help “the poor” or “the homeless” can be diminished as the targets of the policy are subtly racialized.

The role of race is a tricky thing to measure through public opinion polls, I think, but it seems important nevertheless.

Agreed.

But when the rabid right wing makes a god out of the market and a demon out of the government, fine lines don’t typically enter the conversation.

(And I say this as a pastor with degrees in both economics and theology . . . *grin*)

Thank you.

GOP doesn’t understand that food stamps for those who are eligible are non-inflationary. They help people make the rent, or the mortgage, or the car payment, or the bus. Dollar for dollar they’re a far better investment than defense or the banks.

I agree that the bankers need some tough love, with an emphasis on the tough part.

The thing that is hard to figure out is to what extent we are trapped into helping the guilty in order to save the innocent. Geitner and Summers combine two very different things: a) excessive closeness to what Tom Ferguson calls the “big pigs,” and b) a lot of inside knowledge of how the system works. Pres Obama appears to believe that the inside knowledge is dominating their responses and they are doing what is necessary to help the rest of us. I have quite a bit of faith in Obama’s good sense, acuteness, and willingness to learn. He may be right, and he might correct any major mis-steps.

But I’m still nervous. WAS it really necessary to honor those crazy AIG obligations? One economist told me that AIG actually insured US TREASURY obligations from default. What, AIG was stronger than the entire US government?

Race also gets covertly buried in the far right rhetoric (thinking Palin here right now) of the good ol’ homogenized country folk vs. unholy city dwellers, too. Xenophobia, homophobia, racism, religious exceptionalism.

What has become of the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department?
We definitely need more competition.
But competition alone is not enough; investment banks competed like crazy to sell outrageous packages of toxic assets. We also need strict regulation, including some way to keep home lenders connected with the mortgage debts and available to negotiate in times of trouble.

Food STamps are especially helpful in a recession like this, where they help the whole economy with maximum efficiency (every dollar in spent and multiplies quickly) which also helping the worst off.

I hope you are right about Obama. I see some blind spots with him in political cronyism and teamsmanship. But I think he does have the ability to “respond” which the last administration so did not have. But again, I worry about cronyism and the seduction of that. The foxes seem to be still in charge of the henhouses.

What about Bernanke’s role? How do you feel about him?

WRT competition, this is another issue. I’m just throwing it out there for comment.

One of the issues the rather technical article below raises is the competition between the research teams. Since they don’t want to jeapordize their chance at the prize, they won’t share research. That in turn penalizes the entire world.

A Project-Based Perspective: Algae Biofuels Economic Viability

one of the problems with economic inequality is the fact that the wealthy own the bully pulpit, they get to say whatever they want and then they get to choose who represents the other side of the story.

with that scenario it’s not surprising most people wind up voting against themselves

In the book we don’t talk about race as much as we should. Partly that is a rhetorical tactic, to avoid distractions, eg check how Americans feel about poor people when not emphasizing race. (We do at a few points show that there is consensus across racial lines as well as income and party lines, all groups favoring these egalitarian policies.)
A big story in American politics at least since the late 1940s has been the use of race to distract lower-income whites from their economic interests by scaring them with the black menace. Palin has a new and subtle twist on that, but the tactic is very old

Amen.

This from Jane back on April 3 will make you sick:

New Democrat Melissa Bean Helps Banks Gut Grayson Bill to Limit TARP Bonuses

Not only can we not get regulation, we can’t even cap bonuses. The venality of the industry is staggering.

The vichy dems postured as though they were capping executive compensation, but gutted all the legislation.

Very disheartening, but we soldier on.

The Anti-Trust Division at DOJ was a victim of the power of the God of The Market under Bush.

If The Market does something (per those who worship The Market), it is by definition Good. If one person or a small group end up controlling a certain portion of economic activities, it’s because they are so much better at it than everyone else. Why would you want to restrict The Market?

When you add in the belief on the far right that government is inherently inefficient, regulations of any kind are seen as drags on The Market that will only cause more problems.

Again, we’re back to perceptions versus reality.

Definitely true. It is easy to exaggerate govt waste (Reagan was a master) while ignoring corporate waste.

he was also a master at becoming famous for things he did not do

he’s famous for “shrinking government” when he grew it, he’s famous for “reducing taxes” when he not only raised taxes 6 of his 8 years, he also raised them more then any peacetime president before him

and of course he’s not famous for redistributing middle class assets into the pockets of the wealthiest people on the planet

If you have not had a chance to read Obama’s “Dreams from my Father,” be sure to do it! Fascinating reading. Amazing luck that we got such a person as president. I met Obama briefly in 2005, when he was a brand new senator, and was impressed by how quickly he had picked up crucial knowledge. And how well he listened, even to me.
Still…. American politics is money driven. The dems need lots of money, and much of it has been provided by investment bankers, most notably Goldman Sachs. (cf WSJ January ‘08 about early money from Wall St.)
For long term progressive success, reform of money driven elections is essential, I believe.

Rhetorical tactics are part of that mystification and distraction. And take the focus off the upper class’s raping of the common till and makes people paranoid about each other and those beneath them, i.e., immigrants, other ethnic groups, etc. Divide and conquer with as perris just pointed out the corporate media as the echo chamber for the “bully” pulpits.

Very tangential, but it has super annoyed me that those lotteries across the country have to have such super large totals to win. Instead of letting 200 people win a million dollars each, one person or a few wins $200 million, etc. So you know someone somewhere is taking advantage of this structure in terms of profiteering.

Disheartening, yes, but I believe that bonuses are largely a distraction. Now that the govt owns or controls a bunch of these institutions, it may be unwise to pay people in them a lot less than people elsewhere, or we will lose even more on the taxpayers’ investment.
The thing to watch is whether and how Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank and company (who were way behind the curve when the financial crash started) work to fundamentally reform the system and institute serious regulation. Again, I fear that once the banks are out of danger they will use their restored political power to resist change. And the Dems have not been great on these issues. (I might even include the gung-ho deregulator Joe Lieberman with Greenspan and Rubin as a chief villain.)

As we come to the end of this very interesting Book Salon,

Ben, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book.

David, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, this is a very interesting book, if you haven’t bought one yet, here is a link.

Thanks all.

For long term progressive success, reform of money driven elections is essential, I believe.

Amen.

I’ll read that after yours. :) Glad you have that confidence in him. It may help me because I fear he will have the wrong “daddy figures” in terms of economy and military choices coaxing him away from populism.

It is hard not to be a conspiracy theorist with the IMF and that other super dooper big international organization (I am forgetting its initials). Like the global group that Peter Finch was told about in the movie Network. Super-oliogarchs!

Thanks to Bev for hosting this great event, and giving me the opportunity to host it, and thanks to Ben for writing this important book and discussing it with us, and thanks to everyone else for some great questions and discussion!

You guys have been great! Great salon. Thank you!

I think it is useful to look back at Reagan’s tactics in order to get ready for the next wave of anti-egalitarian politics. Rhetoric is crucial. Vigorous counter-rhetoric is essential

Thanks to you all! Lively group.
And thanks very much, David and Bev.

“Counter-culture” is essential!

Agree, the bonsues are a distraction.

IMHO, banks aren’t going to lend in the areas we need them to. They want to drive shareholder value and that for the most part doesn’t include taking risks on stuff that creates jobs.

They’d much rather use our tax dollars to fund mergers no risk mergers which actually kill good-paying jobs and lock in their profits, even as they soak up huge amounts of our cash.

Then while they take our money they donate to DEFICIT HAWKS. Next stop for pillaging are Social Security and Medicare.

And Congress’ oversight on predatory practices re credit cards will be glacial in terms of actually kicking in, not for a year or more.

Seconded.

bmaz is front-paged!
Obama To Git-Mo Better Military Tribunals

Thanks Ben