Get APLawrence.com by RSSLet's NOT have a revolution
2009/10/15I listened to Bruce Judson on NPR yesterday discussing his new book, It Could Happen Here: America on the Brink .
Unfortunately, Bruce has a poor speaking voice - you can hear him at his blog (and also get a quick overview of what the book is about). Don't let his voice interfere with what he has to say - it's important.
You can also read this Huffington Post column for background.
My more right leaning readers won't like what he has to say - but you haven't liked what I've said about this either, so that's nothing new. It's that horrible "socialism" again, stealing money from hard working folks who earned it by the sweat of their brow, you can't punish the wealthy, yadda, yadda.
OK, fine, we hear you. But both history and modern game theory teaches that if you get too greedy, you are likely to lose it all. Right now, the rich are far too greedy: close to 25% of all income is concentrated in the top 1% of U.S. taxpayers.
Perhaps even worse, overall wealth is concentrated even more: more than half of it is held by 5% of our population.
Let's forget about the suffering of the poor, the vanishing middle class. We are unimportant, voiceless, powerless. Let's accept the right's insistence that concentration of wealth is good and just. Forget morality, let's just talk about those all important rich people who do matter: if they keep greedily grabbing every crumb, their world will crash around them.
Bruce Judson's book posits a revolution of the left, rising up to demand higher taxes for the rich, more social programs and free health care. That could happen, though I think it's more likely to come from the right, the "tea party" people, who will want the Constitution re-written with "Christian" guidance. In the NPR interview, Bruce agreed that it could go that way just as easily.
The point is that people WILL reach a breaking point and all hell WILL break loose. Maybe not now, maybe not until we're squeezed a lot harder, but it will happen. I don't know how bad unemployment has to get or how many families need to be forced out of their homes, but at some point, people will stop being civil, stop hoping that politicians will act, and will tear down the system with their bare hands.
None of us wants that. Not the poor, not the struggling middle class, but most of all the wealthy should fear this the most. They have the most to lose and the farthest to fall. It's one thing to move from a rat infested apartment to a refrigerator box under a bridge - it's quite another to move from a mansion.
I'm almost 62 years old. My retirement funds have been hurt badly and my income has gone down almost 40%. I'm still surviving, and actually living pretty high on the hog, all things considered. But it wouldn't take an awful lot more damage to push me into desperate straits. A serious medical condition, another stock market crash - it could happen, and my reserves are now too weak to survive it. Could I become a guerilla revolutionary? Yeah, honestly, it could happen. It's not likely, but it's not inconceivable,
If I, living in relative luxury, feel like that, what do you think the guy who has been out of work for a year is feeling? What about my daughter's friend whose wife just died after a long cancer fight and the medical bills that exceeded his insurance cap have forced him and his children to lose their home? What's he feeling?
So keep on saying it's "socialist" to raise taxes. Keep on saying we can't break up these giant corporations. Keep on saying we can't afford universal health insurance, can't afford welfare programs, can't afford this, can't afford that. Keep on saying it until it all blows up.
And then what have you got?
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
I sell and support
Kerio Mail server
Click here to add your comments
Thu Oct 15 14:27:44 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
By the way, don't get the idea that Judson is just a left-wing nutcase like me. Read his entrepreneurs book at http://www.brucejudson.com/frombook.html
Thu Oct 15 14:55:41 2009: Subject: revolution badanov
http://www.freeefirezone.org
What you probably don't get and what this radio fella doesn't get is that talk of revolution will blow back on the left the hardest because of simple demographics. You don't have the numbers to enable a revolution and you never will, and if you try, you will get a revolution, just not with the outcome you would prefer. And riling up etnic majorities will just harm the minorities over time. Witness the condition of the community. All because a bunch of white leftists have this idea about a revolution.
Careful for what you wish for, in other words.
The above is a major reason why I am conservative and a republican, because only conservatism can guarantee everyone's rights, even loud mouth leftists who advocate something they don't really want.
Thu Oct 15 15:06:49 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
You didn't read very carefully. I think any revolution is more likely to come from the right and the author says he agrees that's just as likely.
You also failed to understand that excessive greed THREATENS conservatism. That was my point: even if you are a right-wing, gawd love the rich type, you should be worried.
Thu Oct 15 15:14:57 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
only conservatism can guarantee everyone's rights
THAT is a pretty amazing thing to say :-)
It's so laughable that I'm hesitant to replay history for you. The biggest "right" conservatives protect are the right to bear arms (which I agree with). On everything else, from slavery through abortion and gay rights, conservatism has never "protected" anyone. Not even free speech or right to assembly... no, conservatism has a very bad track record there.
Thu Oct 15 15:23:36 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
Moreover: you seem to assume that I and Judson WANT a revolution. Obviously you haven't read his book (and probably won't), so you'll have to trust me that he absolutely does not.
Nor do I. Nor does anyone but a few nutters here and there. The POINT is that beating down the middle class will lead to either revolution or just economic collapse and anarchy.
But don't you worry about it: taking money from the super-rich is a bad, bad idea. It's that awful commie-fascist-socialist stuff the tea party folks yell about, isn't it? Too bad most of them can't even tell one -ist from another...
Thu Oct 15 15:38:13 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
And finally, let me explain something to you about "loud mouth leftists".
Most that I know are very much like me. I know that my ideals are only ideals and can't work in the real world because of stupidity, greed, selfishness and plain old inability to reach consensus on even something as simple as "What kind of pizza should we get for the party".
I understand conservatism: it's fear. Fear of change. And as I have said many times, sometimes fearing change is exactly what we SHOULD be doing. Unfortunately, when carried too far, we get Bush/Cheney - and we could get worse!
Liberal ideals can be too far left - I understand that even though I hold them. Hard right conservatism fails on the other side, and unfortunately that's the direction we are tipping right now.
Ignore it - rail on about "loud mouthed leftists" if you must. But the problems are real and even a few on the right are starting to understand that.
I doubt we'll ever be in danger of tipping too far to the left here - your ideals are pretty safe from that. But you ignore warnings like this at your peril.
Thu Oct 15 15:59:26 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
The reason I think the Right is more likely to cause problems is because of crap like this: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/texas-governor-says-secession-possible/
Same sentiments are rampant in Alaska - perhaps for slightly different reasons, but it is still disturbing.
Thu Oct 15 16:16:47 2009: Subject: revolution badanov
http://www.freeefirezone.org
The pinnacles the US has reached with regard to quality of life were built by capital not by government spending so it is very hard in my mind to convince anyone that more government spending can improve the lives of anyone when it is government that constricts rights and freedom. Taxes and regulations that the left loves to impose have a funny way of affecting everyone, not just the rich.
It is kinda cute of you to point out that profits, which drive further investment, you know, jobs, is so evil it must be taxed. And only someone who loves government so much can state, without breaking down in hysterical laughter, that profits are evil, because only government is the arbiter of profits, the only societal institution that has a problem with profits, and yet benefits from it.
The fella with a job, has no problem with it. The store owner has no problem with it. And if a customer has a problem with it, they just goes elsewhere. It's called freedom.
Maybe you should embrace it and stop trying to tax it and regulate it out of existence.
Thu Oct 15 16:31:19 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
Concentration of wealth also affects everyone - as our latest meltdown should have taught us.
Again, you are failing to see what is actually being discussed here. Typical of the right: mention taxes or regulation and you get a knee-jerk reaction. The tax burden on small business and the middle class is too heavy - we agree. What you aren't seeing is the danger that comes from the kind of income inequality we have shifted into. You are being duped by the rich and powerful - pawns in their game to be even more wealthy.
Nothing here wants to destroy capitalism - far from it. That's one of the reasons why I pointed you at Judson's on-line book - to help you understand this.
It's simply that we've let it go too far and we -you and I- need to claw back what has been taken from us.
Thu Oct 15 16:53:22 2009: Subject: revolution badanov
http://www.freeefirezone.org
You'll get no argument from me with regard to clawing back, but regulation, tax and spend policy will not do it fairly and effectively.
Governmental enforcing the laws on the books now will help with regard to banks which should have been treated as governmental institutions from the beginning.
I WANT the super rich to become richer, because I have never gotten a job from a poor man, and therefore I want someone who owns a small business to become rich. They employ me with a decent living wage, the best I can hope for these days.
But they can do that best with as small a government possible. Our argument should be how small, not how much havoc should the government wreak.
Thu Oct 15 17:17:49 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
Far more jobs come from the "poor" (small business) than from the mega-corps.
Small government is impossible. How would we have built our Interstates with "small" government? How could Medicare exist?
But I actually agree with you about the rich - ideally, I wouldn't tax them all that heavily. I'd make it impossible for them to GET that wealthy but limiting how much they can control (think Murdoch) and how much of a market any one corporation can control.
But where we are now is ridiculous. Remember that the rich use their power to influence tax law - lowering THEIR taxes at your expense. Remember also that most of them are dirty - look at the screaming over this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j3uUn6g4oe6VLte5R-4ULpmOoOBg
Thu Oct 15 17:40:09 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
the best I can hope for these days.
THAT is a very sad commentary.
Thu Oct 15 18:02:46 2009: Subject: revolution badanov
http://www.freeefirezone.org
THAT is a very sad commentary.
I agree it is very sad, but at least I don't go around trying to take people's substance for them for something that is beyond their control..
That used to be called theft, but in fairness it should be called what it is: tyranny.
It's just markets. Some are winners. Some are losers and when the government gets involved the only winners are government, and everyone loses.
The left advocating that expansion of government as a cure for economic woes is just dishonest and deliberately deceptive.
Thu Oct 15 18:08:54 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
Nothing here is arguing for an expansion of government. Here we are talking about limiting the powers of mega-corps and the people who own them.
Free rein capitalism has dangers - as we have seen, time and time again.
It's not "just markets" when people are controlling those markets.
Thu Oct 15 18:23:08 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
By the way, you mentioned "tyranny", which is a word I hear often from the right now.
I'm reminded that the same language was used when we began to desegregate the South. It was "tyranny" to interfere in States Rights.
The same cries come up today over gay rights - though of course the real tyranny is that which an ignorant majority holds over a minority.
And of course any talk of taxes - no matter what the purpose, no matter what good, no matter even the larger effect might even save you money - it's "tyranny".
Thu Oct 15 18:30:17 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
The left advocating that expansion of government as a cure for economic woes is just dishonest and deliberately deceptive.
I doubt that there is any credible economist on the left OR right who still thinks that unfettered capitalism is workable. A few nut-job AM radio hosts, maybe. But nobody else.
Thu Oct 15 18:38:18 2009: Subject: revolution badanov
http://www.freeefirezone.org
You know, there's a helluva lot of stuff you're "not saying" Try saying them rather than pointing out what you're NOT saying for once so this can be a conversation and not a pissing match!
You have my views. What are YOUR views.
Thu Oct 15 18:47:20 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
I'm going to have to take a break, because my first reaction is unpleasant. I'll respond tomorrow.
Thu Oct 15 19:01:46 2009: Subject: anonymous
I often wonder why opinions from left-leaning people seem more thoughtful, reasoned and less prone to hyperbole and knee-jerk answers. Does it only SEEM this way to me because I am left-leaning myself? [Would a right-leaning person in my position even stop to consider this ;-)]
Thu Oct 15 19:24:58 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
why opinions from left-leaning people seem more thoughtful
I think that this is a function of demographics.
Most bright, educated people are liberals. Most uneducated, not so smart people are conservatives. That's expected: conservatism distrusts change.
That is NOT to say that all conservatives are dumb. Consider William F. Buckley as an extreme example and there are plenty of others.
What it does mean is that conservatives have a large base of people who agree with them without having any intellectual capacity to really deserve their opinions. I know from conservative friends that this "dumbo" base can tick them off as much as it does us, though of course few would dare say that in public.
(A good example was John McCain getting visibly upset with that woman who insisted Obama was a Muslim)
The same unfortunate situation exists with religion. There are very bright people who are deeply religious, but it's almost a lock that a dumb person will never be an atheist. Consequently, you'll meet a lot of religious people who are not so bright, but you'll almost never meet an atheist who is not.
Thu Oct 15 20:03:04 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
Another good example is Lindsey Graham calling "birthers" crazy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/sen-graham-calls-beck-a-c_n_306434.html
Thu Oct 15 20:10:31 2009: Subject: revolution badanoverestofthepopulangetsfotio
http://www.freeefirezone.org
Leftist opinions are reasonable because, frankly, rich folks can't gather enough votes to oppose it when the popular sentiment is to make them pay more for government services they don't even use.
The expressed sentiment makes you sound brilliant when in fact you're just another huckster selling a solution you know logically cannot work, and indeed has never worked throughout history.
You want economic justice by raising taxes? Raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich, but you can't do that because it won't work politically. You want more economic justice? Stop perpetrating the fraud that government can enhance any individual or institution outside of government.
Honestly, today's liberals sound like snotty, spoilt sixteen year-olds at their Super Sweet Sixteen birthday party.
You got Congress and you got the presidency who will now proceed to pack the supreme court with Hispanic and Black supremacists, the whole time trying to convince the Great Unwashed, those judges don't really mean what they say.
You Won, to quote a famous Marxist. Stop acting like you're losing. Start governing.
Thu Oct 15 20:24:11 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
OK, now you sound like a racist. Was that your intention?
You must be contending that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't save this country from collapse.
I'm heading off to Poker now. I'll take this up tomorrow.
Thu Oct 15 23:53:51 2009: Subject: BrettLegree
http://6weeks.ca
(Hmm, should I jump in? Heck, why not!)
Am I liberal or conservative, who knows? I do think the rich should pay more taxes in my own country (Canada) - my opinion, of course.
What's happening here is pretty much what's happening everywhere. The current government (in our case, Conservative) is moving the money and hence the power base "out West", where they are from.
Traditionally the government has centered around Ontario & Quebec, and that's where the money's been. And the industry, and so on.
But the West's been rising, and now the big players in the government are moving it all out West, to reward their rich buddies.
My own province (Ontario) just might be a bit like a backwater country in about 15-20 years, if it continues.
What to do, what to do... revolution? I hope not, plus could we really organize that sort of thing, I doubt it.
Canadians are not like that anymore, if we ever were.
Could it be a grey collar worker thing, kind of like in Fight Club, where the gas jockeys and the security guards and variety store clerks fight back? Again, I don't think so.
No, I think it might be more of a John Galt thing where the highly-educated middle-class "stop the motor of the world".
Don't believe me?
It is happening right now where I work.
My company is likely to be one of the ones "given" to the rich buddies out West, and I believe that the actions of a lot of the senior people are intentionally putting a wrench in the works.
Many are doing the bare minimum, some even doing things that slow down work, making counterproductive decisions and so on.
I don't see any young people like myself doing this (career suicide, after all), but I see it a lot in the older people who made the company what it is, and are bitter that it is being taken away.
Since they are only a few short years from retirement, perhaps they figure they have nothing to lose.
It is interesting to watch, to say the least!
Will any of it matter? I doubt it. My own industry (nuclear) is being quite actively off-shored to India right now. Many members of our government, as well as the executive of my company, have been traveling extensively to India.
I hear it is quite nice over there this time of year, and I like the food :)
Fri Oct 16 02:49:53 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
, frankly, rich folks can't gather enough votes to oppose it when the popular sentiment is to make them pay more for government services they don't even use.
Actually, since most of our reps are wealthy, they often DO oppose raising their own taxes.
Secondly, there's a great fallacy in "services they don't even use". For example, all of us benefit from social programs that decrease crime, all of us benefit from research grants etc.
selling a solution you know logically cannot work, and indeed has never worked throughout history.
Actually, I (and others) contend that it HAS worked in the past. A much stronger argument can be made that low taxes and lack of regulation plainly has NOT worked.
Stop acting like you're losing. Start governing.
Is this the right wing "Obama hasn't done anything"? If it is, you've been listening to AM radio far too often. In fact, a lot has been done and there's more to come.
Finally, I have to ask again that you explain why your comment about the Supreme Court shouldn't be seen as coming from a racist bigot?
Fri Oct 16 05:14:33 2009: Subject: drag
Politics are a funny thing sometimes.
People want to believe that they are on the side of the "people" and all that crap. Like the Democrats want to believe that they are representing the poor and Republicans want to believe that they are the for the working class and all that.
But it is all horseshit, unfortunately.
The people that generally engage in heavy politics are the rich on BOTH sides. If you actually examine the demographics of the people that engage in political debate and all that stuff then you'll realize very quickly that they are rich all the way around and they are only representing their own personal viewpoints.
And Obama has done lots of stuff. The downside is that it has not actually accomplished anything. Cash for clunkers generated a lot of sales, right? Well sorta... But what really happenned is that as soon as "Cash for clunkers" starting hitting the news people stopped buying new cars. Why? Because they new if they waited a few months then they could get 2-3x the amount of money on their trade ins.
It is the same thing with anything else.
What people have to realize is that the government is NOT in control. The president can't help you, nobody in congress has the ability to save the planet, and nothing they can possibly do will ever solve any health care crisis. The USA is simply just bigger then they are and they cannot control or change reality.
Also they are all actually pretty stupid and cannot really do anything correctly on stuff they can control.
And the matter of the fact is that while the top 1% controls 25% of the wealth they also contribute to the majority of the taxes that get paid. If they weren't so f-ing rich then there would be nobody to fund all the social programs that people are so obsessed about. About 50% of the people in this country pay nothing in taxes yet they benefit the most from it.
The reality of the situation is that EVERYBODY is richer then they ever were before. The poorest people in this nation have more material wealth and better healthcare (and other such measurements) then richest people did 70 years ago.
What is needed is people to just stop thinking that it is somebody else's job to help them out and to take responsibility for their own actions.
Sersously. The "housing bubble" and the pop was not caused by the LACK of regulation. All the regulation and laws were already in place. All the regulators had full opportunity to control and examine what was going on. They had full control over all of it and could of at any point put a stop to it.
But they did nothing. They looked the other way because it was politically expedient at the time. Selling debt to other countries was what allowed us to finance the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Without the bubble the economic crisis we face now and would of happened long ago.
And there is all sorts of problems that we have laws to pass and agencies to control and they still go on. Why? Because that is how the government has been setup to work since the 1920's.
Everytime we have a problem the representatives stumble all over themselves to provide a "fix" for it and rescue us from another great depression. Like clock work this happens every 10-20 years and will continue to go on as long as we have a viable economy. Why? Because the government can not solve jack shit and people work out solutions on their own. Then after 10 or 20 years they forget and do it all over again.
BTW, the fixes are given fixed budgets. The regulator agencies and special sessions and all that stuff is given funding to last 3-5 years and then after that the congress has to get together and approve another bunch of years of funding, which they never do. They just let them wither on the grape vine.
This is how our government works. Fix the crisis, which they can't fix, but can make a lot of noise about and spend a lot of money then move onto the next problem and depend on people's short attention span to prevent political fall out later on.
Fri Oct 16 11:33:32 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
EVERYBODY is richer then they ever were before
No, the middle class has lost wealth and income. We have gone downhill.
while the top 1% controls 25% of the wealth they also contribute to the majority of the taxes that get paid.
Not entirely accurate. First, the rich escape a lot of taxes because they have the money to pay the best accountants and also influence law makers to create tax shelters. Their contribution may be large, but it's often not a fair share.
For example, Warren Buffet says that the rich should pay more because he only pays 18% while his secretary pays 33%: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1&page=1
He also claims that almost no billionaires ever pay estate tax when they die (smart lawyers again). Their money passes untouched to their heirs, yours probably goes to pay a nursing home!
Second, the rich benefit from taxes more than we do: who gets the most from highway dollars, you or whoever owns UPS?
Who benefits more from drug research, you or the pharma companies?
Often taxes flow right back to the companies that the super-rich own, too.
Police and defense: the rich again benefit more.
The "housing bubble" and the pop was not caused by the LACK of regulation.
Absolutely not true. The games (the credit swaps et al.) that caused this were outside of regulator control. This stuff was invented and designed to not be controlled!
Another contributing factor was allowing big banks to concentrate power by gobbling up competitors. This made a small handful of banks doing risky deals. It's possible that a larger number of smaller banks would have also all acted irresponsibly, but it's less likely.
And the rich contributed to this also by demanding more wealth building opportunities. The credit swap stuff wasn't invented for you and me.
Fri Oct 16 15:01:57 2009: Subject: BigDumbDinosaur
http://bcstechnology.net
Bruce Judson's book posits a revolution of the left, rising up to demand higher taxes for the rich, more social programs and free health care.
Didn't the Russions try that in 1917? Communism disguised by any other name is still communism. That is what most of the left-leaners in the USA and in the White House are advocating.
Fri Oct 16 15:06:00 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
Sigh...
First, socialism is not communism, but more importantly THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!
The book is warning that unless we wake up, either the left or the right could radically change our country. He's NOT advocating that the left do this, he's warning that it could come to that!
Fri Oct 16 15:13:58 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
And as I said above, and as he said, and as his book says, the revolt could just as easily come from the right.
Frankly, I think that's much more likely - and I know most of us wouldn't like that either!
Fri Oct 16 15:35:35 2009: Subject: Tony
However, your comment about the Russian revolution is appropriate in that it was horrible conditions and a very wealthy upper class that caused it. THAT is what Judson is worried about.
Fri Oct 16 15:55:43 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
For those always carping about socialism:
Social Security and Medicare are socialist programs. Without them, we'd have homeless seniors camped out on park benches until they died of starvation.
My mother was in a nursing home for more than 10 years. Her savings were eaten up in the first year; those awful socialist programs kicked in after that.
What would have happened to her without that? She had lived with us for ten years before she became more ill, so we would have somehow had to care for her. But of course we couldn't, so we'd probably have lost our house and we'd all have ended up in a tenement somewhere.
And then we wouldn't be having this discussion :-)
Fri Oct 16 17:10:50 2009: Subject: TonyLawrence
I bet someone will say "We're not as bad off as the Russian peasants were in 1917"
True, but it's not a matter of comparing us to them. They weren't comparing themselves to how their ancestors might have lived in 1300 - they felt they had lost during their lifetimes and their parents.
Discontent comes not from where you are, but where you came from. An Egyptian slave might have been overjoyed to live in 1916 Russia. A 1916 Russian might find present day America a paradise.
But for a person accustomed to living as most of us live, losing their home, their car, their health insurance is a major loss.
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar