A Change in the Social Contract?

The intro to this article says that "A sea change may be afoot in how American business views its role in society":

A gentler capitalism, by David Callahan, Commentary, LA Times: Every few decades, America's business leaders change their minds about what obligations corporations and the wealthy have to society. This happened 100 years ago, when ex-robber barons like Andrew Carnegie invented modern philanthropy to address social ills, and in the mid-20th century, when leading executives stopped fighting unions and backed more generous wages and benefits. It also happened in the 1970s, when big business rejected that compact with labor, leading to the harsher free-market ethos of the 1980s and 1990s.

Now, corporate leaders are shifting their thinking once more, calling for a gentler form of capitalism.

The latest evidence came last week from two titans of business, H. Lee Scott Jr., chief executive of Wal-Mart, and Bill Gates, the retiring chairman of Microsoft. At an annual meeting of thousands of Wal-Mart employees and suppliers on Jan. 23, Scott pledged that the company ... would promote energy-efficient products and improve labor conditions in its supply chain. Scott even said that Wal-Mart stores might one day generate electricity with windmills and solar panels. The very next day, Gates ... used a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to call for a new "creative capitalism" in which "more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world's inequities."

Signs have long been mounting that corporate leaders are looking beyond the bottom line. Last year, nearly two dozen top U.S. companies ... joined to call for faster action on climate change. ... Scores of chief executives have hired "corporate responsibility officers" -- a position that didn't exist a few years ago -- to monitor their companies' records on environmental, labor and diversity issues.

It is easy to be skeptical of such moves and talk. ... Still, there's good reason to think that we are at another historic pivot point. Corporations, and the people who lead them, do not exist in isolation. When society adopts new values, as Americans broadly have on issues such as climate change and sweatshop labor, executives tend to go along. Sometimes the coercive pressure of unions or government forces their hand; other times (as may be the case today with Wal-Mart) they may fear falling out of step with consumers, tarnishing their brand and gradually losing market share. ...

A sea change like this among the far-upper class doesn't happen often. Such a shift, if truly underway today, will have enormous political consequences... If the consensus in the executive suites is that economic inequality has risen too much, or that too many social needs like healthcare are going unmet, or that the polar ice caps might really melt, the next president and Congress will have more success tackling these problems. ...

The very mission of corporations could change. If a focus on social responsibility begins to nudge aside the bottom-line orthodoxy, we can expect voluntary steps to raise wages, improve health benefits (as Wal-Mart has promised) and adopt environmentally sustainable practices.

None of these outcomes is a given. Global competition is fierce, making it harder than ever for business leaders to think beyond their balance sheets. But as more corporate leaders proclaim their commitment to social responsibility, and as politicians, unions and activists demand that they live up to this rhetoric, a new era of a gentler capitalism may truly begin.

To the extent that there is a big change happening, it seems to me that the shifts in the past described above were driven in large part by economics, e.g. corporations giving in or promoting particular legislation to avoid solutions that would be much more costly to them. Thus, it really was concern about the bottom line that was the driving force behind the change. In that respect, you have to wonder how much of today's corporate and philanthropic concern over global warming and and other such issues is really an attempt by corporations to avoid potentially more costly solutions being imposed upon them, or an attempt by the wealthy to avoid a political backlash that would result in much higher tax rates. But, maybe I'm too cynical and there really is a different type of corporation or powerful individual beginning to emerge in response to a shift in social values. In the end, though, count me as skeptical. I'll be happy to be wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it as a general phenomena rather than just through a few high profile cases.

Comments

[reason]

Its the shadow of the guillotine that does it.

[ral]

Are European companies more benovelent by choice or by law?

[Don Quijote]

we have a Social Contract?

and here I was thinking that it was just plain old social Darwinism.

[save_the_rustbelts]

Companies consider economics when making decisions?

I'm shocked, shocked! :))

And so what is wrong with economic self-interest? Pure-hearted ethics might be better, but this is the real world.

[save_the_rustbelt]

There are reports this morning that Hillary Clinton, while a board member of Wal-Mart, concurred with union busting tactics.

Hmmmmmmm.

If that is true, then what?

[reason]

STR...
You know Hillary is not very popular with "progressives" in the Democratic party. What I have never quite understood is why she is so hated by conservatives. Can you explain?

[ral]

GMA reported on the Hillary/Walmart connection. The report stated that foreign sweatshop goods, made by 12 year old girls, were displayed under, or next to, "Made in America" signs. Hillary said she had no knowledge of that.

[paine]

mark writes

"it really was concern about the bottom line that was the driving force behind the change"

extending
the bounded rationality
of capital value maxer outfits
to the new reality

historically
at these various "turning points"
in the corporate relatonship to the people
and its other institutions
two paths might be followed
the people might
thru the people's agent the state
harness these wild and wooly critters
to a new set of reformed social norms and goals
or
the corporate sector might simply
preempt the actions of the people thru their agent
the state
by making a counter offer directly
to civil society

a counter offer
that civil society couldn't refuse
or at least dared not refuse

ps
subsidiary question
how deeply did the actual corporate wagelings
----just one among several
" groups " composing civil society ----
influence this renewed social compact
between the limited liability profo-philic
socio-pathic regulo-phobic
giant corporations
and the rest of us weebles ??

[bob]

Hey i call for free hover bikes for everyone. See how easy it is to practice lip service.

I already demonstrated how Gates is lying (in the other thread about him calling for a kinder capitalism).

Walmart is known for lying too.

Man if you believe this crap i got somegreat land in Florida for ya.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Reason:

a) some right wingers are generally nuts

b) Bill and Hillary have a "anything for power" habit

c) Bill/Hill always have thought they are above the rules (a habit I find among many lawyers with elite educations, by the way).

[save_the_rustbelt]

excerpted from ABC News....

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

The tapes [of public meetings] show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

Clinton would not agree to be interviewed on the subject but now says she no longer shares Wal-Mart's values and believes unions "have been essential to our nation's success."

[bob]

The other question is even if they were telling the truth should we forget the class warfare these dirtbags have been engaged in for all these years.

They have done so much damage they proved they can't be trusted.

[paine]

enough of hideous rapacious hyde
we want doc jeckyl back
or
better yet
that limited liability poodle
scratching at my laboratory door

beware mr faust

mephisto llc has many masks

[bob]

>> excerpted from ABC News....

The same network that brings you rabid right wing talk radio for 24 hours a day in the NY area.

[demisod]

I'll buy this when there is some evidence that corporations have stopped focusing so relentlessly on cutting labor costs and executive compensation is a bit more, ah, restrained.

[anne]

I beat up a poodle in 1990 (not really, but had I known a poodle personally in 1990 I would have beaten her up because I was that kind of poodle beating girl back in 1990). Today, I think poodles (other peoples' poodles) are peachy. Duh.

[bob]

>> Its the shadow of the guillotine that does it.

I'm in my mid 50's.

The number of really decent people that i have seen chewed up and spit out by this system is way too much for me to ever make peace with it.

At the same time i have seen the most perverted folks do well.

[ken melvin]

Fisher of Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy made his with sweeatshops and child labor. Now, a philanthropist, he wants to give SF a Museum containing his art collection.

[bob]

We should have turned the country over to the former residents of the Thomas Hitchcock estate in Millbrook.

[anne]

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3204&pageno=38

1772-1832

Faust
By Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

STUDY

FAUST (entering with the poodle)

Now field and meadow I've forsaken;
O'er them deep night her veil doth draw;
In us the better soul doth waken,
With feelings of foreboding awe,
All lawless promptings, deeds unholy,
Now slumber, and all wild desires;
The love of man doth sway us wholly,
And love to God the soul inspires.

Peace, poodle, peace! Scamper not thus; obey me!
Why at the threshold snuffest thou so?
Behind the stove now quietly lay thee,
My softest cushion to thee I'll throw.
As thou, without, didst please and amuse me
Running and frisking about on the hill,
So tendance now I will not refuse thee;
A welcome guest, if thou'lt be still.

Ah! when the friendly taper gloweth,
Once more within our narrow cell,
Then in the heart itself that knoweth,
A light the darkness doth dispel.
Reason her voice resumes; returneth
Hope's gracious bloom, with promise rife;
For streams of life the spirit yearneth,
Ah! for the very fount of life.

Poodle, snarl not! with the tone that arises.
Hallow'd and peaceful, my soul within,
Accords not thy growl, thy bestial din.
We find it not strange, that man despises
What he conceives not;
That he the good and fair misprizes--
Finding them often beyond his ken;
Will the dog snarl at them like men?

But ah! Despite my will, it stands confessed,
Contentment welleth up no longer in my breast.
Yet wherefore must the stream, alas, so soon be dry,
That we once more athirst should lie?
Full oft this sad experience hath been mine;
Nathless the want admits of compensation;
For things above the earth we learn to pine,
Our spirits yearn for revelation,
Which nowhere burns with purer beauty blent,
Than here in the New Testament.

To ope the ancient text an impulse strong
Impels me, and its sacred lore,
With honest purpose to explore,
And render into my loved German tongue.

(He opens a volume, and applies himself to it.)

'Tis writ, "In the beginning was the Word!"
I pause, perplex'd! Who now will help afford?
I cannot the mere Word so highly prize;
I must translate it otherwise,
If by the spirit guided as I read.
"In the beginning was the Sense!" Take heed,
The import of this primal sentence weigh,
Lest thy too hasty pen be led astray!
Is force creative then of Sense the dower?
"In the beginning was the Power!"
Thus should it stand: yet, while the line I trace.
A something warns me, once more to efface.
The spirit aids! from anxious scruples freed,
I write, "In the beginning was the Deed!"

Am I with thee my room to share,
Poodle, thy barking now forbear,
Forbear thy howling!
Comrade so noisy, ever growling,
I cannot suffer here to dwell.
One or the other, mark me well,
Forthwith must leave the cell.
I'm loath the guest-right to withhold;
The door's ajar, the passage clear;
But what must now mine eyes behold!
Are nature's laws suspended here?
Real is it, or a phantom show?
In length and breadth how doth my poodle grow!
He lifts himself with threat'ning mien,
In likeness of a dog no longer seen!
What spectre have I harbour'd thus!
Huge as a hippopotamus,
With fiery eye, terrific tooth!
Ah I now I know thee, sure enough!
For such a base, half-hellish brood,
The key of Solomon is good.

[paine]

anne ever ready

[Andrew]

"you have to wonder how much of today's corporate and philanthropic concern over global warming and and other such issues is really an attempt by corporations to avoid potentially more costly solutions being imposed upon them"
My thoughts, as well.
Gates, Fisher, Carnegie...wealthy men may choose to be generous. Corporations, not so much. Carnegie still hired Pinkertons, Gates still ruthlessly pursues Microsoft's OS monopoly (I don't know anything about Fisher). I'm not surprised to see folks like Lee Scott ratchet up the 'green' talk. Green sells. Whether or not they do something substantiative, I'll believe it when I see it.
Corporations address social ills when they are forced to by regulation, not because a few wealthy individuals feel sorry for the plebes.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne has jumped the shark.

Anne will never top these comments. She has reached comment nirvana, the place of highest attainment.

I spent the 1990s protecting poodles from vicious liberal poodle beating women. And I don't even like poodles.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Bill Clinton has slipped the leash...

"In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain........"

"Bad boy, bad boy, what you gonna do....."

[anne]

STR was really funny, even in mixing metaphors.

[Joe]

If Walmart embraces energy conservation, it will be to enhance the bottom line, not in spite of it.

As for improving labor conditions in its supply chain, it's hard to believe there's any intention besides insulating the company from effective criticism. This is not Sam Walton's Walmart anymore.

[Alex Tolley]

And pigs might fly.

The social contract change of the mid C20th was in response to a labor shortage after WWII. The steady retrenchment to gilded age values and their reasons have been well documented by Krugman.

Companies going green? BusinessWeek did a nice article on this last year and pretty much showed it was green-washing, even amongst companies with the greenest of credentials. Peabody coal has pretty much stated up front that it's support for carbon sequestration are just to ensure that they get a seat at the table if/when the rules get changed. Remember the idea of stakeholders vs shareholders popular in the late 1990's? US business s**t on that "Euro-socialist" idea pretty quickly in the name of profits.

I expect change when the vast majority companies are forced into it due to circumstances, not from some internal idealism.

[reason]

STR
Amongst conservatives I would have thought point (c) was almost a point of honour. If there is one thing that absolutely distinguishes Bush/Cheney it is point (c). And they ain't lawyers. As for point (b) well that is what happens when you get people choosing to run for the job of the "the most powerful person in the world". I'm of the view that it is like the job of ruler of the universe in "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" - if you want the job, you aren't suited to it. (If you remember the person that held the job was not actually sure if the universe existed.)

[jamzo]

who is david callahan?

about author - website for his book "the cheating culture"
http://www.cheatingculture.com/aboutdavidcallahan.htm

DAVID CALLAHAN has written extensively about American history, business, and public policy. He is author of The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead (Harcourt, Jan. 2004). His five previous books include Kindred Spirits: Harvard Business School's Extraordinary Class of 1949 and How They Transformed American Business (John Wiley/Forbes).

David's numerous articles have been published in such places as The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and The American Prospect. He has also been a frequent commentator on television programs on CNN, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, and Fox News, and has been a regular guest on radio talk shows across the United States, including appearances such NPR programs as Morning Edition, The Connection, and the Tavis Smiley Show. David lectures frequently about issues of ethics and integrity to universities, associations, and businesses. (Learn more about David's speaking.)

In 1999, David co-founded a new think tank, Demos, a public policy center based in New York City. Demos combines research and advocacy, working to strengthen democracy and expand economic opportunity within the United States. Previous to co-founding Demos, David was a Fellow at the Century Foundation from 1994 to 1999, where he engaged in wide ranging public policy research and analysis. David received his B.A. at Hampshire College and his Ph.D in Politics at Princeton University. Born in 1965, he lives in New York City.

[jamzo]

who is david callahan?

about author - website for his book "the cheating culture"
http://www.cheatingculture.com/aboutdavidcallahan.htm

DAVID CALLAHAN has written extensively about American history, business, and public policy. He is author of The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead (Harcourt, Jan. 2004). His five previous books include Kindred Spirits: Harvard Business School's Extraordinary Class of 1949 and How They Transformed American Business (John Wiley/Forbes).

David's numerous articles have been published in such places as The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and The American Prospect. He has also been a frequent commentator on television programs on CNN, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, and Fox News, and has been a regular guest on radio talk shows across the United States, including appearances such NPR programs as Morning Edition, The Connection, and the Tavis Smiley Show. David lectures frequently about issues of ethics and integrity to universities, associations, and businesses. (Learn more about David's speaking.)

In 1999, David co-founded a new think tank, Demos, a public policy center based in New York City. Demos combines research and advocacy, working to strengthen democracy and expand economic opportunity within the United States. Previous to co-founding Demos, David was a Fellow at the Century Foundation from 1994 to 1999, where he engaged in wide ranging public policy research and analysis. David received his B.A. at Hampshire College and his Ph.D in Politics at Princeton University. Born in 1965, he lives in New York City.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Reason:

Bush and Cheney are way past even the sleaziest lawyers, they have been in a position to do real harm.

True enough, anyone who wants to be President probably is not morally fit for the job - but that paradox fits most of recorded history.

[jamzo]

i posted callahan information too quickly - wikipedia provides more perspective - latimes loved his book "the cheating culture"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Callahan

The Cheating Culture

Callahan is best known for his 2004 book, The Cheating Culture, a nonfiction work on unethical behavior in American society. Since its publication, The Cheating Culture has been reviewed or discussed in numerous newspapers and magazines. The Los Angeles Times called the The Cheating Culture "a breathtaking book," while Esquire proclaimed it a "damning and persuasive critique of America's new economic life." In a profile in The New York Times, Chris Hedges called Callahan "a new liberal with old values." Callahan has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs to discuss The Cheating Culture. He has also lectured widely on the book to business groups and university audiences, frequently as a keynote speaker.

[edit] Other Writing

In addition to The Cheating Culture, Callahan is the author of six other books. These include his 2006 book, The Moral Center, which examines how a market-based economy, i.e. capitalism, with its focus on pursuing self interest, undermines the moral fabric of U.S. society. Callahan argues that powerful market forces have eroded family life, led to a more crass and violent media, fanned a new wave of criminality among the upper classes, and undermined the value of work. The American Prospect has called The Moral Center "fresh and provocative." Callahan is also author of the 2002 book Kindred Spirits, a history of the Harvard Business School Class of 1949. In an interview about the book with The New York Times, Callahan contrasted this earlier group of business leaders, many of whom frowned on conspicuous consumption, with the pervasive greed and corruption found in contemporary corporate America. USA Today called the book "intriguing" and "incredibly detailed." Before writing his recent books on ethics, morality, and business, Callahan published three books on U.S. foreign policy, including Dangerous Capabilities, a biography of Paul Nitze, and Unwinnable Wars, a study of U.S. involvement in such ethnic conflicts as the wars in Bosnia, Rwanda, Lebanon, and Biafra. In addition to his books, Callahan's many articles have appeared in such publications as The Washington Monthly, The Nation, The New York Times, The American Prospect, and Commonweal.

[edit] Demos
Callahan co-founded Demos in 1999. Demos is a nonpartisan, non-profit public policy organization which seeks to create a fairer, more democratic America. Headquartered in New York City, with offices in Boston, Washington, D.C., and Austin, Demos publishes frequent research reports, as well as supporting 15 fellows who write books, articles, and studies. It hosts frequent public events, both in New York and in other cities around the United States. Demos staff and fellows are frequently quoted in the media on topics such as credit card debt, the squeeze on the middle class, voting problems, and the rise of income inequality. In 2006, Demos had a budged of $4.5 million.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne:

Metaphors can be mixed but martinis must be shaken.

[hari]

Mark -

I suspect your cynicism is NOT only a product of growing up on a Yuba City ranch (btw I was there when it looked a John Wayne main street in late 1950s!).

The so-called social contract is NOT a law of the land.

In EU it's the law of the land! Yes, and it makes capital a bit more compassionate when it comes to question of equality and climate and environment in particular.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Bill again (poor Hillary), he forgot to read the social contract .......

January 31, 2008

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York...................

[bakho]

Corporations like some types of regulations because it creates an environment where they can do very well. For instance take ozone depletion. Everyone agrees that it is bad. The science is solid and won the Nobel Prize. The old CFCs needed to be replaced with greener molecules.

Take DuPont. The patents on the old CFCs were expiring. DuPont owned patents on the replacements so they stood to benefit. Moving to new standards benefits the manufacturers of air conditioning equipment as old equipment becomes more expensive to service. The standards mean that there is a level playing field. Companies making greener CFC replacements and new equipment cannot be undercut by cheap CFCs that continue to externalize the ozone depletion costs.

Not having regulations creates winners and losers. Montreal Protocol phased out the ozone depleter methyl bromide in 2004. In preparation, companies came up with alternative to methyl bromide that should have hit the US market in 2005. Due to Bush shenanigans, the methyl bromide ban has not been enforced. Those companies with replacements are operating in Europe, where methyl bromide is banned but are shut out of US markets by the continued methyl bromide use that externalizes the ozone depletion costs.

I don't think it is cynical. Companies can develop winning strategies that are rule based. Rules require values and people can disagree about values. However, at the end of the day, society comes to a consensus view and the majority write rules that reflect shared values. Industry that can read the writing on the wall and develop a corporate strategy taking into account the new rules can profit. The alternative is to put a finger in the dike and delay the way BigTobacco did. Great short term strategy, but a loser in the long run.

This is not something "new" or a "new" era but an ongoing process. In some instances (global warming) the new consensus values have implications that are much greater than say removing lead from gasoline.

[Finance Monk]

I'd rather be a philantropist than one of the people they're trying to help. It's certainly easy to preach a new form of capitalism after you've succeeded in it so well.

Sure some of these speeches as of late paint a rosy picture, but the trends seem to be going to opposite direction. Harsher bankruptcy laws, a fading relevance of labor unions, the disappearance of pensions, the commodification of workers and increased lifetime employment volatility, the privatization and individual-resposibility based retirement accounts...

A much better view of the changes to the social contract I think is Jack Bogle's new article/book on the rise of Agency Capitalism:

http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp20060208.htm

[hari]

I listened to Rubin on video at Bloomberg speaking on what's gone wrong with American capitalism and rest of gov policy at Coopers Union (NY?). He spoke about an hour and also answered a lot of q's from the audience.

What was amazing about his perception of the so-called social contract included education, environment/climate, manufacturing and employment and, of course, healthcare.

I sort of realized his political grasp of beltway debate and political posturing. He was not making a political point, but insisting that Clinton sometimes didn't avoid taking a realists position on policy even if it was against his own ideology/party. Because the long term was their political goal ...to set the stage for sustained expansion and growth.

[barry payne - economist]

paine:
"two paths might be followed
the people might
thru the people's agent the state
harness these wild and wooly critters
to a new set of reformed social norms and goals
or
the corporate sector might simply
preempt the actions of the people thru their agent
the state
by making a counter offer directly
to civil society"

price taka price taka
da maka we be
we maka da prica
'den taka it, see?

greed is greed does
no matta you be
add da value, da value
com pete 'wi me

don't taka wi da stata
earned dimes from me
da stata my pimpa
it pro teka me frum and you

wi da rent, da sur, da plus
dat be
k street my corner, you da john you see

we decida who da getta
frum da winna taka alla

selfa mada mor da betta
spreada round for thee

do da huck, da huck da huck-a-bee
give it up, give it up
to char-i-ty

beggar ism for al trisms
now has a da gree
to be selfa mada
in da image
volun tar i ly

giv it up, uh huh
lowa taxa, uh huh
give it up, uh huh
lowa rega, uh huh

[JRossi]

Cultural externalities. I don't know much about business elites, but I can tell you that it is high time for a cultural change in medicine. We have been almost wholly perverted by the capitalists. Medicine is (or should be) fundamentally altruistic. It is also difficult, so our society (and other societies) make a deal: they give us special status (prestige, a good and secure living) and we give them medical care, even for people who are poor. We also get the psychological satisfaction of doing important work. Don't laugh. That is huge to us. But in exchange we take ourselves out the the big-money games and leave that to others.
Well, anyone who reads the papers knows we live in a different world. These days first-year med students (I teach them) have no problem admitting to looking forward to a career in dermatology. Doctors have long realized that they can make more money for less work by consulting for drug companies or insurance companies or by selling their souls to corporate medicine. But the culture of medicine held them back. Not any longer. Not in America. Other doctors see their ex-colleagues getting more for less and decide to join in.
Is there a pool of young, intelligent, and not-so-selfish students in this country who can get medicine back to where it should be?

[Richard A.]

With regard to global warming, most economists (who have taken a position) have come out in favor of a carbon tax over the cap and trade approach. OTOH, most business interests that act concern about global warming are lobbying for the cap and trade approach. These business interests are only looking out for themselves.

[Patricia Shannon]

I'm no fan of the super-rich elite, but they have families and live in this world, and (from what I've read) most are not sociopaths (aka psychopaths), although some are. So it is not surprising if they sincerely care about global warming. And as human beings, they see themselves as good people, and they will be affected by the attitudes of their society. Of course, they are also affected by the attitudes of the people they socialize and identify with, generally their own class. So I am willing to accept that some of their actions come from moral reasons, in addition to selfish reasons.

[Cathexis]

Companies may be finally realizing that treating employees like disposable commodities, cutting services/quality in order to cut cost, and that customers may no longer accept their products/services if the cost-cutting affects them ... all of that may have been extremely short-sighted and destined to end in Scorched Earth results?

On one hand, I'd be delighted.

On the other hand, I'll cautiously wait until I see actions that confirm an actual shift. Talk is cheap.

[kthomas]

This is a all nonsense. Though I am loath to metion it, Milton F said it best - a corporations only objective is profit.

There no such thing as a social contract in capitalism. I'm shocked any of you would even bother discussing this. It's survival of the fittest.

Sadly, reason said it correctly: only fear of the guillotine will have an effect here.

[STS]

hari: Thanks for the Robert Rubin tip -- did you see it online?

Finance Monk: Thanks for the Bogle link. Very interesting.

Marx was wrong about class struggle. Political orientation is largely independent of economic status. What is needed to govern effectively is a social contract which forges a coalition across class lines.

In recent times, the Republicans have been able to govern through a modern variant of the traditional Tory "God & Country" social contract. I like to call their version the "God & Mammon" coalition: "God talk for the poor, bucket loads of cash for the rich."

Bill Clinton in 1992 talked about a social contract involving "people who work hard and play by the rules" making a better life for themselves. That was a pretty good statement of the Democratic alternative. Now we need to decide whether Hillary or Obama can do a better job of restoring that traditional small "d" democratic social bargain.

[robertdfeinman]

We of the anti-Walmart blogosphere have been mocking Walmart's Lee Scott over this speech for a week, now.

You can read choice analysis at Walmart Watch

or the one where I contribute:
The Writing on the Wal

Let's just say that all Walmart's claims to be doing better for the environment or their workers (or this week economically stressed consumers) have turned out to be just more PR.

It's not just that everything is measured against the bottom line, but that many of their initiatives are phony and affect very little. Read the stats on Walmart Watch on how little has changed after their revamp of their health insurance program.

[One of the angels]

Thank you for the bio, jamzo; and JR for that view from the medical/educational profession; and barry payne economist poet; and Finance Monk for that lead/link...and so many others who thought they should land their thoughts here...and who weren't afraid to have them poked/stroked. I believe this is a luxury and falls outside that 'Talk is cheap.' from Cath which is just now staring at me. So important to talk back and make an expensive fuss.

[hari]

STS -

It's was online and Rubin was better than I expected!
I notice it's not anymore on Bloombergs videos this afternoon...lots of other things competing for attention.
Anyway, it was rather long and well thought out piece by
himself, I thought.

And the discussion which followed was also illuminating because he was confronted by some good contradictions from past statements...

[kthomas]

"Marx was wrong about class struggle. Political orientation is largely independent of economic status."

I can accept the first statement, but how can you be so certain about the second? Only an American would make such an observation.

The only thing Marx was wrong about were his solutions to class struggle. As for the sources of class struggle, especially in an industrial society, he was absolutely correct.

[hari]

Did you know his father was an immigrant from white russia and it was in Coopers Union where he got his first job, he said.

[dirtyal]

Note to Alex: "The social contract change of the mid C20th was in response to a labor shortage after WWII. The steady retrenchment to gilded age values and their reasons have been well documented by Krugman."

Absolutely right on.

I am wondering why the change in the social contract seems to have been permanently incorporated into the fabric of most of the EU countries and, yet unfortunately, not into the fabric of the US?

To me, this seems to be the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Why don't we get it here in the US?

[hari]

dirt al -

Because Summers/Marx/Brad/et.al. will/always argue US is bastian of "free market" capitalism. I suppose they actually mean calssical "laissez faire" economics!

In EU, we've accepted social market economics as part of "acquis european" because old europe has lots of historical economic experience with mercantile and oligopolitic systems owned and ruled by the elite of the establishment classes of past regimes.

Therefore, in terms of historical materialism, EU has come a long way - per se - compared to US capitalism, and has now included climate change, proper food labelling including a lot of other things which tend to protect the society and its weakest links.

There's NOT much to show, at least for now, anything resembling a social contract under US model of materialism.

It's more or less survival of the fittest!

[hari]

dirt al -

Because Summers/Marc/Brad/et.al. will/always argue US is bastian of "free market" capitalism. I suppose they actually mean calssical "laissez faire" economics!

In EU, we've accepted social market economics as part of "acquis european" because old europe has lots of historical economic experience with mercantile and oligopolitic systems owned and ruled by the elite of the establishment classes of past regimes.

Therefore, in terms of hisstorical materialism, EU has come a long way - compared to US capitalism per se - and has now included climate change, proper food labelling including a lot of other things which tend to protect the society and its weakest links.

There's NOT much to show, at least for now, anything resembling a social contract under US model of materialism.

It's more or less survival of the fittest!

[paine]

payne
civic sector meets sicilian sector

[paine]

kt

""The only thing Marx was wrong about were his solutions to class struggle"

he didn't propose any "solutions "
those only showed up between 1918-1928

we're callin for a mulligan on that project comrade

some day when we play our party cards right
and we'll get another shot at "state power "
and do it different
if not better
zig zag zag zig zag zig zig zig zag
n steps forward m steps back ....

[STS]

kthomas:

It might be more accurate to say that Marx was wrong about the process and outcome of class struggle. It isn't a clear-cut Manichean struggle in which the good guys finally win out.

Fitzgerald was not wrong to write that the rich "are different from you and me." The idea that economic status influences our political outlook is a valuable one, but it is an oversimplification. Where does the term "limousine liberal" come from? And "What's the matter with Kansas" anyway? There are plenty of wealthy people with highly progressive views and an ample number of penniless reactionaries. Maybe not a majority, but we lose an important part of the picture when we ignore the large minorities who cut against the Marxist stereotype. Yes our politics are influenced by our economic status, but determined? No.

Call me a bourgeois deviationist, but I think the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, or the American Revolution did more for liberty and justice than did the French Revolution. Or at least they delivered more at a cheaper price in blood.

We need Mugwumps as much as we need Sans-culottes.

[paine]

"It's more or less survival of the fittest!"

thank clio for
"the more or less part "

however its exactly
survival of the survivers

[paine]

" It isn't a clear-cut Manichean struggle in which the good guys finally win out"
where'd he say that

marx conjecture :
the en soi pour soi prole class
are the world historical exploitation ending
agents of clio

as to good vs bad
proles are beyond
the bounds of burger good and evil
as are all sublating classes
even this last class of classes

[paine]

"We need Mugwumps as much as we need Sans-culottes."

we no need no stinking mugwumps

[kthomas]

STS, thanks for the reply.

"bourgeois deviationist"----> very funny. Made my week.

[STS]

paine:

Loved your "Common Sense" -- could use more of that.

Hegelian double talk like "the en soi pour soi prole class" is the "tell" which tells me this dude is bluffing!

"all sublating classes even this last class of classes"

Please tell me this doesn't translate as "the good guys win."

Mugwumps were chumps of a sort, but I don't find the guillotine particularly edifying. No mulligans on Leninism either, pal.

[hari]

You guys are getting carried away with poor Hegelism.

Why not try a bit of Nietzsche's...

[donna]

What would be really nice is if any business leaders actually bothered to READ "The Social Contract", instead of merely "Wealth of Nations", which they misinterpret to read "Wealth of ME".

As to why right-wingers are so hateful and stupid, I've concluded they are simply insane and have zero knowledge of what would actually be in their own self interest instead of merely foaming at whatever the spokesperson of the rich decides to lie to them about and make them believe they are somehow better than everyone else for believing it.

How people can be so idiotic is just beyond me.

[donna]

And I am sick to death of the term "social Darwinism". Survival of the fittest is NOT what Darwin ever said AT ALL.

He said those who survive are those who best adapt to change.

[paine]

sts

keep your white shirt on

i love ya baby

"good guys don't cut off heads
to edify folks "

but double talking sublating classes
often find it expediant to liquidate
the sublated class too swiftly for
anyones good
alas
some times it gets
very personal and physical

we sublators can't always save u sublateds

often yes mayhaps all too often
we can't cure the infection
and end up killing the patient

[paine]

"Why not try a bit of Nietzsche's"
hey i flirted with sublated nitchy

beyond good and evil is not about
super men
but super classes

[paine]

"make them believe they are somehow better than everyone else for believing it."

you got a piece of the real there donna

only certain types mind you
the bed head nitchy types
that are often but one step beyond
a pocket protector

[anne]

Donna:

"And I am sick to death of the term 'social Darwinism'. Survival of the fittest is NOT what Darwin ever said AT ALL."

Me too; the phrase "survival of the fittest" was used by Herbert Spencer and is a tautology. But, the phrase fit the times so well and was used so readily that in revising "Origin of Species" for the final time Darwin included the term in the chapter explaining natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.

Darwin was however never a social Darwinist, and Spencer was a gentle anti-colonialist. But, those of the time heard what they wished to hear. Non-evolutionists happily and with unlnowing irony took up the term.

I do appreciate Darwin, and Donna.

[anne]

As for being a tautology, after Voltaire's this being the best of all possible worlds, the fittest always survive, no matter the plant or animal that survives that animal or plant must have been fittest.

[Turbo]

That is truly the best laugh I've had all day. Big business is a brutal and cutthroat world to begin with, but I would have to say over the last three years it has become significantly more of a cutthroat, unethical, winner-take-all environment - a process that is accelerating, not abating, and most certainly not reversing. We get cheery, feel-good management speeches all the time - perhaps the writer might try actually working in a multi-national corporation for a while, rather than actually believing the propaganda? You have to consider that a senior executive is typically just an accomplished politician of another stripe.

[anne]

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/n67a/part3.html

1891

Thus Spake Zarathustra
A Book For All and None
By Friedrich Nietzsche

ZARATHUSTRA'S PROLOGUE.

1.
When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,—and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:

Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!

For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.

But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.

I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.

Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether–world, thou exuberant star!

Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.

Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest happiness without envy!

Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss!

Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man.

Thus began Zarathustra's down–going.

[hari]

Nietsche : "Will to Power" follows with substance on Zarazutra.

[paine]

"used by Herbert Spencer and is a tautology"
ya
but these damn analytic statements
put into red meat language
have a tendency to leak out
into the synthetic realm
and cause
topsey to be mistaken turvey

take another notorious tautology
say's law
supply creates its own demand
taken as more then the identity it is
a nasty piece of policy "guide dance"

like i=s
investment equals savings
or mv=pq or ...
just
look at the missed opportunity
misery and horror
these hollow formulas excuse

[hari]

Anne -

"Old Europe winning the war for MBA telents", FT (23/1/08)

Wander why?

[hari]

Anne -

"Old Europe winning the war for MBA talents", FT (23/1/08)

Wander why?

[hari]

Anne -

"Old Europe winning the war for MBA talents", FT (23/1/08)

Wander why?

[Matthew]

It seems that we need a little more government intervention in matters of health care.

www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org

[roger]

If I were writing a book about the superrich, I'd say nice things about them in public too.

One should remember that the nice Mr. Carnegie wrote his book after the bloody union busting of the Homestead strike, with its use of an army of Pinkertons. And that the years after the book was written were the bloodiest in labor vs. management history, culminating in the Ludlow massacre.

What actually effected the sea change was the progressive political currents that were picked up on first by Teddy Roosevelt, and then by Woodrow Wilson. It is sweet that Walmart, whilst paying their employees bottom wages, is planning a green p.r. campaign, but I'd look at what their lobbying money is buying in D.C. before I'd buy the gentle rich thesis.

With a new, total environmental threat, we will soon have an actor on the scene - Mother Nature - with which developed countries have not had to deal since they emerged from the Malthus trap in the 18th century. This will be interesting.

[dirtyal]

Donna:

"As to why right-wingers are so hateful and stupid, I've concluded they are simply insane and have zero knowledge of what would actually be in their own self interest instead of merely foaming at whatever the spokesperson of the rich decides to lie to them about and make them believe they are somehow better than everyone else for believing it."

Maybe you just uttered another tautology?

I always like the Ross Perot line about "don't listen to the people who tell you how to think." Maybe there are just too many people at the right of the radio dial telling them how to think?

[Patricia Shannon]

Turbo,
Truly said

[Patricia Shannon]

see Bob Altemeyer's online book "The Authoritarians" for some insight.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[TigerPaw]

Another thought to keep in mind about the "gentle rich" stuff coming out. If you were rich and concerned that the peasants might be considering revolting or at least taking away some of your favourite things, putting out a story like this might be good propaganda. It'll distract some, convince others, and generally confuse things. Then you'd have a few more years to keep shearing the sheep. Then when the effectiveness began to wear off you'd think of another ploy to keep things going.

Boiled down, as many others have basically said, ignore the words, and watch the deeds.

[Patricia Shannon]

TigerPaw, that's true, those people are prone to self-serving propaganda.
But I know from talking to some business people that some want regulations such as minimum wage increases, because they want to pay their employees more, but wouldn't be competitive if they did.

[ral]

There is only one presidential candidate who cannot be bought by corrupt big business. Now that the banks are involved in so much fraud and so little benevolence, we need this proven champion of the people. His altruistic track record, free of political crony capitalism, speaks for itself:

"Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion.

McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal.""

[James Kroeger]

M. Thoma:I'll be happy to be wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it as a general phenomena rather than just through a few high profile cases.I think the significance of Callahan's observations is not that the whole of Corporate America is moving toward a new social consciousness, but that society may soon benefit from a fracturing of the corporate community into opposed philosophical factions. This is important because---if there is ever going to be great social/economic change in America---it will occur not as a result of a storming the Bastille, but as a result of a growing Compassionate Identity within the upper class.

If it could ever take root, this Compassionate Identity would be able to displace to a great degree the Republican Party's monopoly grip on the philosophical POV of the Rich American. Republicans want to win elections and they know money is the single most important determinant, so they continually pander to the basest instincts of rich people. The rich are encouraged by Republicans to view their privileged positions as very tenuous and dependent on their continued vigilence and willingness to work together as a class to protect their 'interests.' And so tax cuts are continually recommended to cure all economic ills.

Some corporate citizens are now realizing that everything does not always work out for the best when the government does nothing but throw money at rich people. They are open to a new raison d'etre, but unfortunately Democrats do not seem prepared to offer them an alternative vision that they can get excited about. Hillary and Barack both talk about corporate responsibility, but none are willing to propose an economic vision that describes a better, more prosperous America that is built on the heavy contributions of America's wealthiest class to public investment.

With this kind of vision, it should be possible to split the upper class into two opposed factions, one that defines itself around a compassionate moral identity while the other continues to advocate the same old Republican agenda. It could have a profound effect on the future of the Republican Party. It is even possible that the Republican Party would not survive such a development.

What kind of alternative economic vision might do the trick? I'm thinking something like this. The rich can actually make themselves richer---in real terms---by optimizing the economic security of all those below them on the economic ladder. Why not be heroes of the Average American while at the same time making yourself optimally richer?

[billyblog]

It turns out that it's not Bill Clinton who has "slipped the leash," but save_the_rustbelt, in quoting Bill Clinton out of context as having said: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

Check it out at Media Matters.

Here's what Clinton actually said (but read the whole sorry smear):

"CLINTON: And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties [sic] -- would say, "OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren." We could do that.

But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work."

You owe someone an apology, Rusty, for letting your Clinton Derangement Syndrome overtake your otherwise acute powers of judgment. Let me expatiate just a bit.

1. From your own post you are clearly puzzled that Clinton would say something so baldly stupid as this. One can almost hear the wheels grinding in your head towards the end of the post when you say:

"Or perhaps he misspoke.

"Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain........"

Perhaps, perhaps, indeed!

2. Poor, Rusty. Not certain? Then why did you act like a freshman term paper writer and not check a bit on your source before spreading this canard further? Perhaps you could have divulged to us that it was the serial distorter over at ABC, Jake Tapper, who apparently started this nonsense – gosh, just in time for the debate.

3. And the tra la la about contradictions, which then unfortunately spilled over into further nonsense by others about contradictory metaphors. Boy, you're really enamoured of your ability to "deconstruct" a text, aren't you?

Anyway, Rusty, will it be an apology or some self-serving spin?

[anne]

Billy, thank you so much for noticing.

I had not had before noticed the supposed comment by Bill Clinton, which is everywhere on the Internet and repeated here but which obviously had to be false. I can understand being fooled, because evidently the intent in postings on the Internet was to fool readers. Good grief.

[anne]

Bill Clinton:

"The only way we can do this * is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work."

* Deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

Precisely. There can be a thorough meanness and dishonesty on the part of several reporters, that needs to be identified and guarded against. The cacaphony of reporting voices helping to drive us to war is not to be forgotten.

[STS]

I've located the Rubin video link. Certainly the Q&A (starts 2/3 in) is more incisive than Rubin's prepared remarks.

[bob mcmanus]

James Kroeger, you have been added to my blogroll

Excellent stuff

[paine]

"a growing Compassionate Identity within the upper class"

liberal republicanism by any other name is still...

you are calling for
a revitalized rippon society
to counter the party's hegemonic rip off society

[paine]

billary blog
who pays your rent

no one on their own goes around cleaning up after

road kill bill
why bother
anne i'm surprised at you

bill clinton is the little abner of the dlc
forget him he's yesterday's library paste

now mother clinton...

that alas
is still a working bulb

btw
anyone silly enough to think she'll
let this baseness
the tarzan of gerrulous gultch
the unzipped goof from hope
wreck her ascent to the white castle on penn ave
don't know a lion -ess when they see one

in all these years since
we craved an counter part
to dick nixon for amerika's
responsible left hand side of the road ...

well hill she be it

the closest thing
to ......himself
i've observed

and she's got
a set of bone fide
first row
jack ass credentials to boot

[paine]

jk
your pitch sounds like
that back channel
info mercial

for the wonders of ....a colon cleanser

[Michael Cain]

I'm supposed to believe Bill Gates on this? The same Bill Gates who, with Andy Grove at Intel before him, saw no connection between the fact that their firms had added no net science or engineering jobs in the US for years, and the shortage of students willing to put in the five or more difficult years it takes to get an engineering undergrad or graduate degree?

[Horatio Parker]

The more equitable society we once enjoyed wasn't a product of the post-WWII era, it came out of the New Deal.

Roosevelt was forseeing guillotines, and preferred sacrificing a few sacred cows.

[dirtyal]

Horatio: Were you around then? I was.

Think about this. There were millions of people between the ages of 23 and 35. They were young men and women who went through the Great Depression. Then, about the time things started to look a little better, they went through WWII.

There was a great mass of humanity that had seen the worst fifteen years our country had experienced since the Civil War. They had always believed in the American Dream, and they had the best parts of their lives put on hold by things that were horribly disagreeable, not to mention deadly.

Almost everyone in that age group, men and women alike, were in the same boat. They were ready for just about anything from starting new careers to going back to school on the GI bill. Nice little homes, a wife and family. It was the American Dream come back to life.

By the time the post WWII era came, sure there were remnants of the New Deal. The GI Bill was a new deal kind of program. But Roosevelt was gone and the government was not having the impact on the lives of citizens as it had for fifteen years.

I think you are missing a lot of economic history by thinking that the equitable society that we had after WWII was the result of Roosevelt or that he was sacrificing a few sacrificial cows because he could see the guillotines.

There was an unbelievable pent up demand, there were lots of people willing to work, and there were lots of people with similar backgrounds who had lost fifteen years of their lives. On the whole, they were pretty easy to satisfy. They were willing to work hard and be fairly satisfied with whatever came their way--they were a lot better off than they had been from 1929 to 1945.

I was born in 1944 and was able to see it from the points of view of my parents and their friends. There was still lots of talk about both the depression and WWII. It made such a permanent impression--a fundamental change in the lives of the entire nation--it really wasn't about the New Deal anymore. It was about winning the war and getting back to the peace. It was about full employment and most people having the best chance they ever had.

People who have very little don't mind an equitable society nearly as much as people who think that someone is about to take away what they worked so hard for.

Consider this an "oral history" if you will.

[STS]

dirtyal:

I think you're correct to be a little skeptical of Krugman's thesis. I wonder if the period of comparative "equality" (less dramatic inequality) after WWII wasn't due to:

a. FDR dispossessing some of the upper crust
b. WWII wrecking all our industrialized competitors

When the US was the only powerhouse economy, and jobs couldn't flow into "low cost countries" the way they began doing in the 1970s (or so), it was a lot easier for labor to get a semi-respectable slice of the pie.

[James Kroeger]

James Kroeger, you have been added to my blogroll

Excellent stuffThanks, Bob

You in Texas, Bob?

[James Kroeger]

jk
your pitch sounds like
that back channel
info mercial

for the wonders of ....a colon cleanserPerhaps, paine, but it was written as a political document. Do you think you could look past the presentation and advise on what you think of the actual content/claims?

[anne]

Horatio Parker:

"The more equitable society we once enjoyed wasn't a product of the post-WWII era, it came out of the New Deal."

Precisely; adding the New Deal legacy that carried over so long beyond Franklin Roosevelt built and sustained America's middle class through the 1970s, and guides us still. From Social Security to Medicare, from the Tennessee Valley Authority on, from protection of the uninsured to the support of the education of veterans, from the Conservation Corps to union protections, from regulatory authorities to monetary policy that protects employment, to fiscal policy that protects employment, and on and on.