Tweet
Originally posted by Maggie
Aargh,
To begin with, I understand your frustration. But the French revolution was inspired, in part, by the writings of Rousseau the American Revolution was not (I don’t think many of the Founders, save possibly Jefferson, held Rousseau in high regard) – and there were very different results.
As for income inequality, usually arguments that Paul Krugman and others make to attempt to demonstrate that we are no longer a “middle-class society” (the rich are getting richer, etc.) are based on household income figures. It is not a serious argument. Households differ over time in size, they differ from one group to another in size, and they differ from one income level to another in size. Over time households have been declining in size – for example if at some point in the past a household had three working adults and now the household has two working adults – and the family is making the same money it always made that is not stagnation it is a 50% increase in per capita income. Which may be why one of those adults left to start his or her own household – he or she could afford to. Household income is utter nonsense. If you are serious you look at per capita income because it always means one person. That is a legitimate comparison, if you are looking to score political points you go to household or family income.
In any event, I don’t see the “have-nots” revolting in this Country. The most significant political movement in my lifetime has been the Tea Party movement. And from what I can tell these people are the “haves”.
Do we have an imperfect political system? Yes, we do. Do we have members of Congress who think and act as if they are Royalty? Darn, right we do. But I don’t subscribe to the view that “rich” people run America – be it Soros or the Koch brothers.
To begin with, I understand your frustration. But the French revolution was inspired, in part, by the writings of Rousseau the American Revolution was not (I don’t think many of the Founders, save possibly Jefferson, held Rousseau in high regard) – and there were very different results.
As for income inequality, usually arguments that Paul Krugman and others make to attempt to demonstrate that we are no longer a “middle-class society” (the rich are getting richer, etc.) are based on household income figures. It is not a serious argument. Households differ over time in size, they differ from one group to another in size, and they differ from one income level to another in size. Over time households have been declining in size – for example if at some point in the past a household had three working adults and now the household has two working adults – and the family is making the same money it always made that is not stagnation it is a 50% increase in per capita income. Which may be why one of those adults left to start his or her own household – he or she could afford to. Household income is utter nonsense. If you are serious you look at per capita income because it always means one person. That is a legitimate comparison, if you are looking to score political points you go to household or family income.
In any event, I don’t see the “have-nots” revolting in this Country. The most significant political movement in my lifetime has been the Tea Party movement. And from what I can tell these people are the “haves”.
Do we have an imperfect political system? Yes, we do. Do we have members of Congress who think and act as if they are Royalty? Darn, right we do. But I don’t subscribe to the view that “rich” people run America – be it Soros or the Koch brothers.
Comment