And you will believe in love/ And all that it’s supposed to be…
Rufus Wainwright and his sister Martha:
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries forworkers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.
Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.
In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.
As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.
Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.
Sounds like a bit of an implied threat there, Joe! Of course, predicting something is often confused with a recommendation…
I’m guessing the $87K from David Koch might have something to do with it.
I’ve been saying this for years: Why on earth do we keep handing all the profits from government-funded drugs back to the pharmaceutical companies? Why don’t we simply contract with different companies to provide them, and rotate them every five years or so?
If this particular drug controversy didn’t have such a clear narrative, odds are, nothing would have happened to give affordable access back to pregnant women:
The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday took the unusual step of announcing that it would allow pharmacies to continue to produce less expensive versions of a drug long used to reduce the risk that women will give birth prematurely.
The move was aimed at defusing a controversy that erupted after the agency approved the drug Makena to prevent preterm births. Makena’s owner, KV Pharmaceutical of St. Louis, is charging $1,500 a dose for the drug. The same compound had been available for years for about $10 to $20 a dose.
The FDA’s statement came a day after The Washington Post reported the intense criticism that has arisen over Makena. After word of Makena’s price began to spread, Internet sites for pregnant women became filled with angry commentary. Some created Facebook pages lambasting KV. The price also drew harsh criticism from several members of Congress, as well as many doctors and medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
On Wednesday, the FDA challenged KV’s warning to specialty pharmacies that had been producing the cheaper versions of the drug that the agency would no longer permit that.
“This is not correct,” FDA spokeswoman Beth Martino said in an e-mailed statement that was later posted on the agency’s Web site.
Although the agency usually does not recommend patients use compounded versions of FDA-approved drugs, “in order to support access to this important drug, at this time and under this unique situation, FDA does not intend to take enforcement action against pharmacies that compound” the agent, the statement said.
The man who killed someone in my old town, the one that was publicized as stoning someone to death because he was gay? The victim wasn’t gay, and the murderer was a schizophrenic who’d been institutionalized several times.