4 ms·

> Why have some on the far left and even more on the far right embraced a crude populism that promises a return to a past that is not possible to restore—and th

> Why have some on the far left and even more on the far right embraced a crude populism that promises a return to a past that is not possible to restore—and that, for most Americans, never existed at all? We know who he's referring to on the far right, but who on the far left? When did populism become a dirty word? >Decades of declining productivity growth What decline of productivity is he talking about? The decoupling of productivity from wages is the issue. Productivity has continued to rise while real wages have stagnated. [0] >In the past, differences in pay between corporate executives and their workers were constrained by a greater degree of social interaction between employees at all levels—at church, at their children’s schools, in civic organisations. That’s why CEOs took home about 20- to 30-times as much as their average worker. The reduction or elimination of this constraining factor is one reason why today’s CEO is now paid over 250-times more. This is a ridiculous rationalization straight out of little house on the prairie. CEO pay is out of control because our values have shifted? Because we are childless atheist heathens? Seriously? He is clearly ignoring rule shifts in the system[1] that biased us toward this outcome. >While the top 1% of households now pay more of their fair share Laughable from the president that made the Bush tax cuts permanent. [2] What reality is he living in? 0. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-gap-between-worker-pay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-... 1. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/02/05/465747726/-682-when-ceo-pay-exploded http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/02/05/465747726/-682-... 2. http://www.epi.org/blog/bush-tax-cuts-stay/ http://www.epi.org/blog/bush-tax-cuts-stay/

lobotryas 10y ago
On the far left? Maybe People who 'member Unions and being able to support a large family doing relatively unskilled factory work. Populism became dirty around the time nationalism (or just being proud of your country/where you were born) became dirty. Maybe it's a response to some people in the West wanting to be seen as "unique, individual thinkers" (to put it politely) instead of a part of a bigger whole.
- omegaworks 10y ago
  > On the far left? Maybe People who 'member Unions and being able to support a large family doing relatively unskilled factory work. This seems like the wrong interpretation since later in the article he states "Unions should play a critical role." harkening back to that era where relatively unskilled labor could support a middle class lifestyle. (You say this like it's a bad thing.) Not sure how much of this article is playing the politics game and how much of it is grounded in the facts that he actually believes.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  It is dirty nationalism only if you are white. Otherwise it is empowerment and celebrating one's heritage.
rconti 10y ago
On the far left? Protectionists, trade isolationists, socialists, etc. I consider populism a dirty word because of its implied favoring of "popular" decisions rather than correct ones. Eg, short-term handouts or taxes or schemes that hurt the economy as a whole, but seem like a good thing today. I think he meant decline in productivity GROWTH; chart 1. http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20161008_FBC568.png http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac... I, too, would prefer more equitable outcomes, but I am fearful of patches ("tax the rich!") rather than addressing the root cause. How much of the CEO/worker pay disparity is the result of attempts to work around taxation on income, causing business and individuals to "re-route" around the "damage" of taxation? Would we have found equity-based pay as quickly? I'd prefer a re-think on compensation taxation in general, rather than just slapping another tax on top of equity-based compensation in a ham-handed attempt to fix it. Same for Obama's comment about potential physicists and engineers using their smarts to "shift money around in the financial system." How many of these things are merely profit-seeking machinations, and how many of them are regulatory dodges?
- omegaworks 10y ago
  You have your history reversed. The slashing of taxes on the rich was itself a patch implemented by Reagan. [0] History since has demonstrated the negative effect these policies have had on the infrastructure and equity this country. Unfortunately, contemporary politicians and talking heads have managed to shift the narrative so drastically that our national dialogue doesn't even acknowledge this history. The deregulation of the financial sector in the 90s - allowing banks to become both investment and depository entities has allowed them to grow and consume a disproportionate amount of human capital and wield an incredible amount of political influence. Hopefully it's not a pandora's box, and we can build the political will to close it again. 0. http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/7/reagans-tax-cutting-legacy http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/7/reagans-t...
  - rconti 10y ago
    I'm not disagreeing, I think you may just be reading too much politics into my statement. All of these patches result in unintended consequences, not just the ones that one political viewpoint advocates.
chongli 10y ago
We know who he's referring to on the far right, but who on the far left? Bernie Sanders. He makes clear references to both Sanders and Trump with this quote: As appealing as some more radical reforms can sound in the abstract—breaking up all the biggest banks or erecting prohibitively steep tariffs on imports—the economy is not an abstraction. It cannot simply be redesigned wholesale and put back together again without real consequences for real people.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> When did populism become a dirty word? When people claiming to be on the side of the little people started proposing simplistic solutions that, if implemented, will cause real harm to real people.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> When did populism become a dirty word? Arguably, it didn't; if it was a "dirty word" on its own, the qualifier "crude" to specify that this wasn't good populism wouldn't be necessary. ("Crude populism" could also be stated as "demagoguery".)

lobotryas 10y ago

On the far left? Maybe People who 'member Unions and being able to support a large family doing relatively unskilled factory work. Populism became dirty around the time nationalism (or just being proud of your country/where you were born) became dirty. Maybe it's a response to some people in the West wanting to be seen as "unique, individual thinkers" (to put it politely) instead of a part of a bigger whole.

omegaworks 10y ago
> On the far left? Maybe People who 'member Unions and being able to support a large family doing relatively unskilled factory work. This seems like the wrong interpretation since later in the article he states "Unions should play a critical role." harkening back to that era where relatively unskilled labor could support a middle class lifestyle. (You say this like it's a bad thing.) Not sure how much of this article is playing the politics game and how much of it is grounded in the facts that he actually believes.
venomsnake 10y ago
It is dirty nationalism only if you are white. Otherwise it is empowerment and celebrating one's heritage.

rconti 10y ago

On the far left? Protectionists, trade isolationists, socialists, etc. I consider populism a dirty word because of its implied favoring of "popular" decisions rather than correct ones. Eg, short-term handouts or taxes or schemes that hurt the economy as a whole, but seem like a good thing today. I think he meant decline in productivity GROWTH; chart 1. http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20161008_FBC568.png http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac... I, too, would prefer more equitable outcomes, but I am fearful of patches ("tax the rich!") rather than addressing the root cause. How much of the CEO/worker pay disparity is the result of attempts to work around taxation on income, causing business and individuals to "re-route" around the "damage" of taxation? Would we have found equity-based pay as quickly? I'd prefer a re-think on compensation taxation in general, rather than just slapping another tax on top of equity-based compensation in a ham-handed attempt to fix it. Same for Obama's comment about potential physicists and engineers using their smarts to "shift money around in the financial system." How many of these things are merely profit-seeking machinations, and how many of them are regulatory dodges?

omegaworks 10y ago
You have your history reversed. The slashing of taxes on the rich was itself a patch implemented by Reagan. [0] History since has demonstrated the negative effect these policies have had on the infrastructure and equity this country. Unfortunately, contemporary politicians and talking heads have managed to shift the narrative so drastically that our national dialogue doesn't even acknowledge this history. The deregulation of the financial sector in the 90s - allowing banks to become both investment and depository entities has allowed them to grow and consume a disproportionate amount of human capital and wield an incredible amount of political influence. Hopefully it's not a pandora's box, and we can build the political will to close it again. 0. http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/7/reagans-tax-cutting-legacy http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/7/reagans-t...
- rconti 10y ago
  I'm not disagreeing, I think you may just be reading too much politics into my statement. All of these patches result in unintended consequences, not just the ones that one political viewpoint advocates.

chongli 10y ago

We know who he's referring to on the far right, but who on the far left? Bernie Sanders. He makes clear references to both Sanders and Trump with this quote: As appealing as some more radical reforms can sound in the abstract—breaking up all the biggest banks or erecting prohibitively steep tariffs on imports—the economy is not an abstraction. It cannot simply be redesigned wholesale and put back together again without real consequences for real people.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> When did populism become a dirty word? When people claiming to be on the side of the little people started proposing simplistic solutions that, if implemented, will cause real harm to real people.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> When did populism become a dirty word? Arguably, it didn't; if it was a "dirty word" on its own, the qualifier "crude" to specify that this wasn't good populism wouldn't be necessary. ("Crude populism" could also be stated as "demagoguery".)