Bob Lord

My friend John Gallagher often talks about the Overton window.

I sometimes say that I’m in the middle of the road where the road is supposed to be.

We’re referring to the same thing. The political spectrum is what defines concepts like progressive, conservative and, especially, moderate. But over time it slides along a much wider spectrum: the ideological spectrum. This phenomenon often is likened to the swinging of a pendulum. But it’s not pendulum like in its movement. A movement of the political spectrum in one direction is no guarantee that it will glide past the center of the ideological spectrum, as a pendulum would, on its way to the other side.

In two countries, the United States and Israel, the political spectrum is jammed about as far to the right side of the ideological spectrum as one can imagine, although that’s not to say as far right as possible.

Two recent New York Times pieces illustrate this current state of affairs.

Read more

Our friend John Huppenthal is now back posting comments after recovering from his post-election blues. No word yet on whether he’s gong to seek office again. Or whether he’s undergone counseling to confront his inner racist.

But his understanding of economics hasn’t changed. More directly, he still has no understanding of even the most basic concepts.

In recent comments, ole Thuckarooskie has been citing statistics comparing 1980 to 2008, in order to show that supply side economics works.

Lest nobody be taken in by the Thuckster’s hucksterism, here’s an apples-to-apples comparison of this supposed golden period, 1980 to 2008, to an earlier 28-year period, 1945 to 1973. 

Read more

[cross-posted from Inequality.org]

By Bob Lord and Sam Pizzigati

You might want to rethink all those really nice things you’ve been saying about ‘equality of opportunity.’

Dear Top 1 Percenters,

Rampant economic inequality in America today, many of you seem to believe, shouldn’t particularly concern us. America, you insist, has always been about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

If we understand you correctly, America wouldn’t be America without equality of opportunity. But taking any steps that would make our nation’s actual distribution of income and wealth more equal would essentially be unforgivable socialism.

Have you thought this through? Do you really support true “equality of opportunity” for all children, yours included?

Read more

This series ends where it started, sort of. On the night of the Democratic debate, I posted If You Were Listening Closely Tonight…. The thrust of that piece was to focus on the difference in the ways Clinton and Sanders spoke about economic inequality:

Sanders spoke, as he always does, as a Democratic Socialist. Essentially, that means he wants to address our extreme inequality through policies that will compress — bringing the bottom up and the top (the billionaires) down.

Clinton’s framing, by contrast, was all about equality of opportunity. She may have thrown in a line here or there about “fairer” tax policy, but those were throwaways. The thrust of her message was that every one should have the chance to succeed the way she and Bill have.

I went on to make the point that only 1% of the population can be in the top 1%, so there needs to be more to it, much more to it, than equalizing opportunity.

But I left out an equally important point.

Read more