Correlation between income inequality and a partisan Congress.

[Leoreth]

You could make a case for that. But consider the extent to which the Republican party has purged its moderates. When all the socially liberal Republicans were forced out, the socially moderates started getting the boot as well. Old school Republicans of the Country Club variety, GHW Bush, Gerry Ford, they have a damned hard time being Republicans now. Before you had the hard core social authoritarians, and the balance of power in the party was the big money interests, which didn't care a lot about those social issues. But that's changed. Even Romney now must pander more to the social wingnuts. There is no place for what he was 10 years ago. Now to be a viable Republican candidate someone has to be both a social authoritarian and economically to the right of Reagan, who himself was to the right of nearly all Republicans from the 1930s through the 1970s. If you are not that far right, don't bother running for national office as a Republican. So I would say they were a somewhat large tent, that is getting smaller by the day.

On the Democratic side, there is a larger tent. You have the Blue Dogs, who are effectively where most Republicans were 20-30 years ago. And you have the liberals, who are not nearly as liberal as they used to be except on just a couple of social issues. So there's really not much place for real liberals in the Democratic party currently, but no place for them to go either.

This reflects my impression as an outside observer, but I'm still amazed how many downright contradicting political ideologies can see themselves to be right at the heart of the Republican party. There are Republicans who claim their political views are characterized in equal weight by conservatism, libertarianism and (evangelical) Christianity, where I can't even see two of them as being ideologically compatible. I think the difference here is that they're often pretending that these ideologies are one and the same, and don't have actual plurality but something more similar to an "acceptable views" opinion bowl.

Now for the democrats, interestingly I can't say a lot about them. They appear to be mainly characterized by trying to keep up with the topics the right sets, and trying to salvage what they can. Seriously, to actually experience the broadness that I'm sure the democratic party still has, someone there would actually have to take initiative and set the public agenda.

 

[cegman]

Leoreth. You know those "blue dog" democrats. The ones Obama has been "eating"

The Tea party is an example of the battle within the Republican party. There is a huge battle between Republican's who supported Bush happily and those that saw him as the least bad option.

BTW This polarization is complete bull**** how does it compare to the huge polarization between whigs and democrats? 1830's 1850's? How about the republicans and democrats in 1856. What about the ugly differences during the 1880s? (Spanish American war) Give me this information during that time.

 

[Cutlass]

This reflects my impression as an outside observer, but I'm still amazed how many downright contradicting political ideologies can see themselves to be right at the heart of the Republican party. There are Republicans who claim their political views are characterized in equal weight by conservatism, libertarianism and (evangelical) Christianity, where I can't even see two of them as being ideologically compatible. I think the difference here is that they're often pretending that these ideologies are one and the same, and don't have actual plurality but something more similar to an "acceptable views" opinion bowl.

I think what happened was that in some way the social authoritarians convinced themselves that being the most "conservative" in every aspect and issue is what is necessary for their ideology. So their anti-communism means that they have to be against literally everything that right-libertarians are against. And that any compromise with that is communism.

These people have no actual grasp of reality. Contradictions are entirely lost on them.

But the problem is that they hold the balance of the votes on the right these days. So the conventional conservatives, the RINOs, as they are now known, have to give in to them, or lose.

Now for the democrats, interestingly I can't say a lot about them. They appear to be mainly characterized by trying to keep up with the topics the right sets, and trying to salvage what they can. Seriously, to actually experience the broadness that I'm sure the democratic party still has, someone there would actually have to take initiative and set the public agenda.

Quite frankly, the Democrats are most characterized complete intellectual failure. As a whole they don't stand for anything, because they can't find something to stand for.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Quite frankly, the Democrats are most characterized complete intellectual failure. As a whole they don't stand for anything, because they can't find something to stand for.

This. Clinton and Obama haven't helped in this regard. Obama can more or less construct a semi-coherent set of speeches; he merely fails to actually stand for the roughly sketched vision thereby indicated.

 

[BasketCase]

There's no correlation at all between income equality and polarization of Congress; what we've got on our hands here is a contaminated experiment.

The U.S. Congress is an isolated system. Only elected Congressmemebers are allowed to be in it, and with the exception of illegal immigrants, only American citizens can vote for Congressmembers. The economy, however, is not isolated. Businesses (and their hiring, and their dollars) can move in and out of the U.S. pretty much as they please.

The seeming correlation on the graph shown in the OP is a coincidence.

 

[Hygro]

There's no correlation at all between income equality and polarization of Congress; what we've got on our hands here is a contaminated experiment.

The U.S. Congress is an isolated system. Only elected Congressmemebers are allowed to be in it, and with the exception of illegal immigrants, only American citizens can vote for Congressmembers. The economy, however, is not isolated. Businesses (and their hiring, and their dollars) can move in and out of the U.S. pretty much as they please.

The seeming correlation on the graph shown in the OP is a coincidence.

I do like that you are thinking critically about ways it can be wrong, and challenging their categories, but I don't think your logic follows. The openness of the flow of capital and goods (but not labor) has shown to increase income inequality. The world has gotten a lot more open in tandem to the rise of inequality. The richest Americans have stayed in America, where their ultimate interests lie, as have the poorest and everyone else. I don't see why investment in foreign operations and imports/exports should change what is an American experience.

 

[Bootstoots]

Does anyone happen to know if a relationship between polarization and income inequality has been observed in other countries, especially in two-major-party systems? Also, what was the situation like in the USA during the 1920s and 1930s, when inequality was also high?

I can certainly see plausible arguments for a relationship between polarization and income inequality, but I'll need a few more examples to be convinced.

 

[cegman]

Hygro

Care to answer my question

how does it compare to the huge polarization between whigs and democrats? 1830's 1850's? How about the republicans and democrats in 1856. What about the ugly differences during the 1880s? (Spanish American war)

 

[BasketCase]

I do like that you are thinking critically about ways it can be wrong, and challenging their categories, but I don't think your logic follows. The openness of the flow of capital and goods (but not labor) has shown to increase income inequality.

Wrong. Lack of the above in any given area makes most of the citizens very, very poor--but not the government. Governments can compensate by simply assuming dictatorial powers and taking what they need. In fact, much of the time, that's precisely how the citizens in totalitarian states get poor to begin with. Zimbabwe makes an excellent example.

In the distant past, when kings and queens controlled entire nations, in those places where the markets were controlled entirely by the crown, people were much poorer--and governments, much richer and far more powerful. Because when the government controls the economy, the food supply, the flow of weapons......control over the citizens follows very naturally.

The world has gotten a lot more open in tandem to the rise of inequality. The richest Americans have stayed in America, where their ultimate interests lie, as have the poorest and everyone else.

Wrong. Liberia is poor. Rwanda is poor. Nigeria is poor. Etc etc etc. The poorest in the United States are far better off than the poor in many other nations.

 

[Hygro]

Does anyone happen to know if a relationship between polarization and income inequality has been observed in other countries, especially in two-major-party systems? Also, what was the situation like in the USA during the 1920s and 1930s, when inequality was also high?

I can certainly see plausible arguments for a relationship between polarization and income inequality, but I'll need a few more examples to be convinced.

I like your questions a lot.

Hygro

Care to answer my question

how does it compare to the huge polarization between whigs and democrats? 1830's 1850's? How about the republicans and democrats in 1856. What about the ugly differences during the 1880s? (Spanish American war)

Well, aside from the nature of racial inequality, it would be worth noting that no one is making the claim that "if polarization, then income inequality" but rather the opposite. If there's a causal effect, income inequality is the square, polarization is the rectangle. There are lots of ways to be a rectangle without being a square.

Wrong. Lack of the above in any given area makes most of the citizens very, very poor--but not the government. Governments can compensate by simply assuming dictatorial powers and taking what they need. In fact, much of the time, that's precisely how the citizens in totalitarian states get poor to begin with. Zimbabwe makes an excellent example.

In the distant past, when kings and queens controlled entire nations, in those places where the markets were controlled entirely by the crown, people were much poorer--and governments, much richer and far more powerful. Because when the government controls the economy, the food supply, the flow of weapons......control over the citizens follows very naturally.


Wrong. Liberia is poor. Rwanda is poor. Nigeria is poor. Etc etc etc. The poorest in the United States are far better off than the poor in many other nations.

Please read Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom." Amartya Sen is a nobel prize winning economist who supports the growth of freedom as the best way to develop a nation. I will defer to him, only to say that because of the nature of societies, income inequality hurts. Also, the poor in America had shorter lifespans than people with greater absolute poverty in poor countries whose governments better manage what resources they have. It's worth noting, because absolute income is a weak measure of effective wealth in society. The poor in American lack the freedom of opportunity that the not-relatively-poor have in a lot "poorer" countries.

Also, Zimbabwe is not a totalitarian state. And in the 90s it was a democracy, which partially why it was doing so much better than its neighbors with the same available resources. Your own comment about kings etc. should show you why income inequality leads to a lack of freedom, making absolute wealth less meaningful.

And the only thing in the first part of your reply that followed from my comment was "wrong" (even though you were incorrect). Your first post already logically didn't follow, now you're off in some other conversation entirely. This is supposed to be how income inequality relates to partisanship. Potential absolute governmental wealth due to dictatorial potential and the free flow of international capital does nothing to change the relationship of income inequality in one country relating to political gridlock in the same country.

 

[Integral]

I do like that you are thinking critically about ways it can be wrong, and challenging their categories, but I don't think your logic follows. The openness of the flow of capital and goods (but not labor) has shown to increase income inequality. The world has gotten a lot more open in tandem to the rise of inequality. The richest Americans have stayed in America, where their ultimate interests lie, as have the poorest and everyone else. I don't see why investment in foreign operations and imports/exports should change what is an American experience.

I'm going to nitpick a bit. Trade openness may increase stratification within nations (especially under short time horizons, it's almost certainly likely to) but also typically brings up average incomes in the poorer society (leaving aside purely extractive "trade" which is almost by definition harmful to the poorer country), i.e. it can narrow the gap between nations.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm going to nitpick a bit. Trade openness may increase stratification within nations (especially under short time horizons, it's almost certainly likely to) but also typically brings up average incomes in the poorer society (leaving aside purely extractive "trade" which is almost by definition harmful to the poorer country), i.e. it can narrow the gap between nations.

Has it though? More open trade between the US and LDCs hasn't really reduced America's share of world GDP or raised that of most of the LDCs.

 

[BasketCase]

Please read Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom." Amartya Sen is a nobel prize winning economist who supports the growth of freedom as the best way to develop a nation. I will defer to him, only to say that because of the nature of societies, income inequality hurts.

Wrong. Income inequality is merely a symptom of other social issues. Much of the time, in fact, income inequality isn't a problem at all; my own personal income, for example. My paychecks have been below the national average for most of my life, yet I live a very cushy life because I spend the money wisely.

Also, the poor in America had shorter lifespans than people with greater absolute poverty in poor countries whose governments better manage what resources they have. It's worth noting, because absolute income is a weak measure of effective wealth in society.

So is lifespan. The rich in the United States have shorter lifespans than rich people in some other nations. There's no reason to assume the United States must always have the #1 longest average lifespan, the #1 lowest infant mortality rate, the #1 highest median income, the #1 hottest babes, or the #1 fastest Ethernet connections.

Also, Zimbabwe is not a totalitarian state.

Only nominally. The ruling party in Zimbabwe has near-total control, and indulges in election-rigging and other, more lethal shenanigans, and of course the arbitrary confisaction of land from formerly-successful farmers needs no additional explanation. The government of Zimbabwe is in reality pretty much your average totalitarian state. Government fiat is directly responsible for many national disasters such as Zimbabwe's food shortages.

Your own comment about kings etc. should show you why income inequality leads to a lack of freedom

My argument was the other way around: that lack of freedom (including the lack of free flow of goods) leads to income inequality. When the government controls the flow of goods, they can simply take what they want, leaving everybody else in that country very, very poor. It's happened many times in human history, and is still happening today in many nations. Particularly North Korea.

This is supposed to be how income inequality relates to partisanship. Potential absolute governmental wealth due to dictatorial potential and the free flow of international capital does nothing to change the relationship of income inequality in one country relating to political gridlock in the same country.

Dictatorial potential and free flow of international capital are mutually exclusive. If you have the one, you will not have the other. Dictatorships (or governments with dictatorial potential, if you wish) assume control over the economy--only the government gets free access to the goods. In fact, many totalitarian states use control over incoming goods as a tool for controlling their citizens.

If goods can flow into a country outside of the government's control, on the other hand.....that loosens the government's grip.

 

[Hygro]

I'm going to nitpick a bit. Trade openness may increase stratification within nations (especially under short time horizons, it's almost certainly likely to) but also typically brings up average incomes in the poorer society (leaving aside purely extractive "trade" which is almost by definition harmful to the poorer country), i.e. it can narrow the gap between nations.

Yes, I thought I had indicated that I was talking about inside nations and not between them. But I had not.

Wrong. Income inequality is merely a symptom of other social issues. Much of the time, in fact, income inequality isn't a problem at all; my own personal income, for example. My paychecks have been below the national average for most of my life, yet I live a very cushy life because I spend the money wisely.


So is lifespan. The rich in the United States have shorter lifespans than rich people in some other nations. There's no reason to assume the United States must always have the #1 longest average lifespan, the #1 lowest infant mortality rate, the #1 highest median income, the #1 hottest babes, or the #1 fastest Ethernet connections.


Only nominally. The ruling party in Zimbabwe has near-total control, and indulges in election-rigging and other, more lethal shenanigans, and of course the arbitrary confisaction of land from formerly-successful farmers needs no additional explanation. The government of Zimbabwe is in reality pretty much your average totalitarian state. Government fiat is directly responsible for many national disasters such as Zimbabwe's food shortages.


My argument was the other way around: that lack of freedom (including the lack of free flow of goods) leads to income inequality. When the government controls the flow of goods, they can simply take what they want, leaving everybody else in that country very, very poor. It's happened many times in human history, and is still happening today in many nations. Particularly North Korea.


Dictatorial potential and free flow of international capital are mutually exclusive. If you have the one, you will not have the other. Dictatorships (or governments with dictatorial potential, if you wish) assume control over the economy--only the government gets free access to the goods. In fact, many totalitarian states use control over incoming goods as a tool for controlling their citizens.

If goods can flow into a country outside of the government's control, on the other hand.....that loosens the government's grip.

Ok, now please go read Amartya Sen because I don't feel like chasing down every tangent.

 

[Algeroth]

I am a little puzzled as to why polarization rises almost monotonically over time. I mean, things are bad now politically, but have they really never been this bad?
.

They were as bad at the beggining of the 20th century and worse just between the Civil war. What is exception in US politic is the nearly half-century of cooperation between '30 and '70.

 

[Cutlass]

They were as bad at the beggining of the 20th century and worse just between the Civil war. What is exception in US politic is the nearly half-century of cooperation between '30 and '70.

Ironically, the 40s through the 70s turned out to be the best time in US history. That was our Golden Age.

 

[Algeroth]

Ironically, the 40s through the 70s turned out to be the best time in US history. That was our Golden Age.

Yeah, but your constitutional system just does for what it was created. The maniacal obssesion with checks on power works as intended. Really, unless you find how to create a period of uncertanity where elected representatives are not sure who they are representing aganist who as was when the whole political landscape was shifting after New Deal and acceptance of Civil Rights Movment by Democrats, You could not have anything like that again. Or you replace your whole political system.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, but your constitutional system just does for what it was created. The maniacal obssesion with checks on power works as intended. Really, unless you find how to create a period of uncertanity where elected representatives are not sure who they are representing aganist who as was when the whole political landscape was shifting after New Deal and acceptance of Civil Rights Movment by Democrats, You could not have anything like that again. Or you replace your whole political system.

I think the changes needed are much smaller than that. Ban gerrymandering, ban people being able to spend money on campaigns they cannot vote for, place tighter restrictions on lobbying. Then you'll get many more competitive elections.

 

[cegman]

Gerrymandering is tough to ban. What do you do? Create a external group to create the map? They have their own bias.

I would like to stop treating corporations as people they should have privileges but corporations do not have rights. The people in those corporations have rights.

Stopping people from donating to people they can't vote for is tough. The monitoring of it might not be cost-effective. I would hope that it is implemented at the state level so we can see how it works before the feds try it.

 

[Cutlass]

I think gerrymandering would be actually quite easy to ban. Just lay down a few basic rules, and then have a non partisan commission draw the lines.

Rules would include:

• District must be as close to geographically contiguous as the circumstances allow for
• Socioeconomic status of an area, past voting history, ethnic makeup, religious makeup, or other group memberships other than population numbers may under no circumstances be considered in the drawing of district boundaries.
• Districts are wherever possible to use existing political boundaries first, first county boundaries, and then city limits. And may only consider portions of cities in those situations where it is not possible to include whole counties, towns and cities.
• The most geographically cohesive and small proposal for the district is by default the winning proposal, unless some other non political criteria can be argued in a specific case.district is
• Where districts can not be made of whole boundaries of political entities, all of the remaining area needed to get to the correct population for the district must come out of only one immediately adjacent area.
• When a town or city is divided into more than one district, the areas within the city which are part of the district will be contiguous and as small as possible