The Class War (Not Generation War!)–in Graphs

by Matthew Payne on June 27, 20125 comments

The standard line for political and economic elites noticing the craptastic economy is to go all Shock Doctrine on the public, which inevitably focuses on two major constituencies–children and seniors, since this is where a disproportionate amount of social spending goes (those famous “entitlements”–like retirement benefits and public education).  The case of the United States–a relatively strong economy at the moment, in that it is in “recovery” (sounds like an AA meeting, don’t it?) is illustrative.  There the attack on children’s entitlements has been spectacularly successful (probably because children don’t, you know, vote) with the collapse of teacher morale and painful cuts being administered to public education at almost every level and in almost every enclave (except those where the wealthy reside).  And, of course, it goes without saying that the young have suffered disproportionately in the great recession with fully 22 percent of children now below the poverty line (children make up nearly half of the poor, so keep in mind when you’re calling someone on food stamps a lazy sponger, those food stamps lifted half the poor children in the country out of extreme poverty into just regular sucky poverty).  The “deficit hawks” (not really deficit hawks since they’ll deficit spend to fund wars and tax breaks to billionaires) have ruthlessly targeted children in the name of their ”austerity” programs and are now even targeting the one program that keeps child hunger at bay, food stamps (to say nothing about stripping children of health care).    Note these cuts are specifically designed to save military procurement budgets, so children will literally go hungry to feed the war machine. Not “guns or butter” but “guns or Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.”

So, since this attack on the social support net for the weakest among us, children, is being explicitly forwarded by factions pressing for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, you’d think this “slaughter of innocents” would be laid on the heads of Herod’s men–the forces of aristocracy and privilege.  You’d be wrong.  Apparently the fault is to be laid on the second weakest demographic in the economy, oldsters.  This “greedy geezers” chant is a staple of “deficit hawks” such as Alan Simpson but it’s beginning to be mainstreamed by liberal democrats as well.  The most egregious of the recent pearl-clutching screeds (“think of the children who will inherit your debt!”) has been penned by a well-known name in democratic circles, Emmanuel (in this case Rahmbo’s brother, Ezekiel).  Now, Ezekial, a major health care advisor to Obama back in the day (by the way, nepotism much?) has been banging the drum to limit social security and medicare eligibility, in effect transforming them from government pension and insurance programs to charity, all in the name of the needs of children (you know, the same children whose programs are being gutted).  Ezekial points out the obvious well enough:

WE’RE always saying that “children are our nation’s most valuable resource.” Unfortunately, we don’t behave as if we believe it. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of children living in poverty in America increased by 41 percent, and now includes nearly one-quarter of our kids. Growing up in poverty is bad. It leads to lower graduation rates (a third of these children will not graduate from high school); lower incomes (nearly half will still be living in poverty at age 35); and lower life expectancy (by about eight years).

But rather than decrying the austerity programs his party and the opposition have foisted on the country (and which he fervently hopes be made more severe in a “grand bargain” during the unaccountable “lame duck” session after the November elections) and maybe, just maybe, collecting  some higher taxes from the wealthy (with marginal income tax rates at an historic low), he wants seniors to hand over their benefit checks to a fund to fight child poverty.  Notice the shell game here?  We, quite literally, allow children to go hungry to fund the Forever War™, but hope to guilt seniors into parting with their pension checks.  Say what?  How about asking some hedge fund managers and corporations to part with some of their profits and “capital gains”?  Maybe even a “Buffet Rule.”  Crickets.  Dr. Rahm might want to check out the charts here on the movement of the poverty rates among different age groups.  The truth is that prior to the passage of Medicare and the indexing of Social Security to the cost of living, seniors were the most, not least, impoverished age cohort in the country.  This is quite a trick–instead of worrying about the traditional recipients of charity, urchins and widows, the new political class tries to set widows against urchins.  Slick.  Geezers versus babes!   Thus, the austerians try to foster generational war to divert attention from the real war (which, one must say, is at least less odious than the Tory approach, which is to generally oversee a huge expansion of youth poverty and then blame the young!).  So what is the real war?  Class war.

Three charts from Business Insider tell us everything we need to know about why people (especially children) are poor and where the money went (h/t Fatster at Firedog Lake, who stimulated this post by placing a story about Ezekial Rahm next to this link to the Business Insider charts).   While these charts are focused on the United States, remember, the US economy is relatively stable compared to the mess in the Eurozone or China’s increasingly obvious slowdown.  The US is still the largest capitalist economy and hardly an outlier.  Here’s the first graph on corporate profits:

Corporate Profits as a Percentage of GDP (c/o The Business Insider)

Clearly, there is no general crisis of capitalism!  Corporate profits are the highest they have ever been.  And there is no sign that “business” is suffering in any way at all with corporate profits accounting for a staggering eleven percent of GDP.  Not coincidentally, businesses have achieved these gains by exploiting workers.  The following graph indicates the amount of GDP going to wages:


Percentage of Wages to GDP (c/o The Business Insider)

Clearly, wages are at an all-time low as a percentage of economic input and that, in a nutshell, is why the economy is so sluggish.  No one has enough money!  While the neoliberals out there may have their hearts all aflutter about reducing wages to such miserly levels (44%!), the GOP-ers and Tory-leaning businessmen out there might want  to remember that the other guy’s wages are your sales.  Sure enough, consumer spending is anemic.  This is almost classic Marxist dynamics on display–the social product known as economic output being diverted (can one say “expropriated”?) from workers’ wages to owners’ profits.  I’m not afraid to use the word “exploitation” for this sort of diversion, since almost none of the gains in productivity over the last generation (which have been substantial) have gone to employees’ wages as opposed to corporate revenues.  Here’s another good chart from David Ruccio at Mother Jones:


Productivity vs. Real Income, 1964-2008 (c/o Mother Jones)

Hard to see any blood, sweat and tears of the country’s workers getting a chunk of that increase, eh?  Take a look at the chart on corporate profits, again.  Any confusion where all those lost wages are going?  Of course, you can maintain the neoliberal fiction that some sort of exquisitely skilled managerial class is worthy of this largess because of their disciplined deployment of capital which, in turn, leads to higher returns on that capital.  Or you can read the newspapers and note these “Masters of the Universe” have been gaming the system, privatizing profit and socializing loss.  Bailout after bailout makes it clear that these fools, if left to the mercy of the “market” they lionize would be selling apples on street corners pretty quickly.  As Fernand Braudel pointed out long ago in his magisterial Civilization and Capitalism, capitalists have a tendency to try to lock in risky profits by moving to rent-seeking strategies, strategies that always involve the coercive power of the state to maintain the rentier class’s privleges over the plebs.  For Braudel the rise of this rent-seeking is always associated with the “financialization” of capitalist economies, which in turn led to the “wandering” of capitalist centers from Venice to Genoa to Antwerp to Amsterdam to London to New York.  It might be worth noting that some fellows with some pretty impressive hardware have noticed this “rentier” dynamic as well. (And for those wondering, Braudel thinks this rentier mode is capitalism, not a deformation of it; perhaps an expression of its “mature” or “late” form).

So, how are they pulling it off (besides a compliant state that slavishly grovels before their interests)?  Simply put, something ol’ Uncle Karl would have predicted–the reserve army of unemployed (once more from Business Insider):


Employed to Population Ratio (c/o Business Insider)

As regular readers of  The Paltry Sapien know, this is one of my favorite metrics as to why the US economy is in major crisis–it shows a precipitous decline of people with jobs and people without jobs don’t tend to agitate for better pay or, indeed, resist the intensification of exploitation (less benefits, longer hours, unpaid hours, de-unionization, etc.), which leads directly to higher corporate profits.  It’s pretty basic stuff–nobody has any damn money because “teh jobz crayatorz” you know, aren’t (creating any jobs).  But I’m sure cutting their taxes or ending pesky regulations like “you can’t poison your customers” will change all that.  Not.  And frankly, “austerity” is here a political, not economic strategy because gutting social welfare programs increases insecurity and suppresses labor demand further.

Hard to argue with Business Insider’s interpretation of these charts, “In short, our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.”

BTW, since some right-wing shill or glibertarian purist will come along and troll about “well what do we do about the children! what about them paying our debts!” let me make make a pre-emptive strike or two.  Coming out of World War II America had a much higher debt-to-GDP ratio and handled it very easily with tax rates, even top marginal rates, generally falling over the post-war decades.  How was this miracle accomplished?  By growing the economy, which in turn led to people having jobs, which meant, wait for it . . ., they paid more taxes even as the rate of taxation fell.  Secondly, we don’t have to wonder how are our children are going to be screwed, since we are already screwing them (and rather overtly screwing them) so rich guys can pay lower taxes and we can still feed the Moloch of militarism.  The growth of student indebtedness as public education, especially state colleges, are starved of government revenue, has already impacted young people far worse than any future tax rates could (this will be the first generation of white collar workers, I predict, that won’t be home owners–but that’s ok!  More of people’s earnings going to the rentiers!)  Don’t blame Grandma for that, you tools.  That this is happening all over the “capitalist world” tells us something–and it ain’t that we have a crisis of capitalism.  We certainly have a crisis of democracy.  Capitalism has roared back, red in claw and fang, indifferent to the market, colonizing the state and callous to the needs of society (especially its weakest members).  One might want to see in these charts a Dickensian moment, but that would be rough on the Victorians–at least they felt badly enough about what they were doing to make A Christmas Carol a best seller.  In modern day America, we instead rely on malign fantasies such as Grandma living large while junior starves and Mr. Jamie Dimon is a super genius.  Don’t get fooled kids and oldsters–the enemy is not each other, it’s those guys pocketing everybody’s wages.

5 comments

Andrew Loewen on June 28, 2012 at 11:40 am. Reply #

I think you hit the right notes here! Class analysis against the neolib generational bait-and-switch. Check. Increased exploitation and inequality. Check. Surplus population (reserve army of labor). Check.That’s the stuff. And thanks for the important reminder and reference to Braudel on rentier capitalism. I of course don’t come to the same conclusion about a lack of underlying crisis (though I suspect by the wit of your exclamation point you may not be entirely serious there).

In terms of the Great Recession, profitability has rebounded fantastically since 2009, true, but how, at whose expense, and to what end?

There’s been: a massive upward transfer of public wealth into the hands of a fractional private echelon (the “financial coup” some call it), heightened exploitation (as you say), mass unemployment, slashed and torched public services at state and municipal levels, etc. Go Go Gadget Profit Rate! And in keeping w/ the hegemony of finance, profits have primarily been paid out to shareholders rather than invested. See Henwood’s graphs here on that:

http://lbo-news.com/2012/06/26/profitability-high-and-maybe-past-its-peak/

As I just said in the comments there: none of the recent profit rate data contradicts the systemic stagnation thesis of the Monthly Review school (which I find very compelling and often reference).

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/12/01/financial-implosion-and-stagnation

After the dramatic collapse of profitability in the US in the late 60s, the full neoliberal arsenal (union crushing, wage repression, offshoring, service cuts, etc) working in tandem with the (Fed Reserve stoked) use of asset-price bubbles and more generally the explosion of the FIRE sector and private debt have counteracted Ye Olde Tendency for Thee Rate o’ Profit to Decline beloved of stodgy Marxists, sure. But: a) At the expense of the masses (with a crazy rise in social inequality) and b) clearly not in a fashion that has thwarted crisis.

Capitalism muscles through the crises it inevitably creates for itself by making the poor pay for them. Hence, the high profits, low investment, mass poverty, and private prisons to warehouse the surplus humanity of 2012.

There be a crisis alright. I like to call it “capitalism.”

Not to go on, but I know people tire of critique w/o counter proposals, so here’s a couple readings for any curious lurkers. First, a little commentary by Richard Wolff on the large scale Mondragon coop network in Spain. Second a book length blueprint for expanding economic democracy across society called After Capitalism.

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon

2. http://books.google.ca/books/about/After_Capitalism.html?id=KWy9JbWvjywC

After Capitalism argues that there are forces developing in the world today that might constitute a “counterproject” to the project of globalizing capitalism. At present, however, this movement lacks a coherent vision of a viable, desirable alternative. After Capitalism attempts to fill this lacuna by articulating, as a successor-system to capitalism, a model of “Economic Democracy, ” an economic system that preserves the efficiency strengths of a market economy, while extending democracy to the workplace and to the structures of investment finance.

Andrew Loewen on June 28, 2012 at 11:45 am. Reply #

Oh and “glibertarian” is genius, whoever coined it.

Matthew Payne on June 28, 2012 at 2:48 pm. Reply #

Hey, Andrew. Nice thoughtful commentary. I used to assign a nifty little book in my grad seminar on Comparative Labor, Industrialization and Technology (co-taught with Georgia Tech) on Mondragon. It was William Whyte’s Making Mondragon. What was interesting about it (and we paired it with Kubik’s The Power of Symbols against the Symbols of Power) is how Mondragon really did build a just and equitable (and very profitable), almost anarcho-syndicalist enterprise and majorly improved an entire region. Of course other folks have done the co-operative thing, but Mondragon was done in the teeth of a fascist police state and with universal contempt. You are right to point to it as a viable model not just for production but distribution. You know (as do our readers) that I am agnostic about the idea that the rate of profit is inherently falling (though who am I to doubt the great Doug Henwood), primarily because a two processes. One is the technological lag. Many major economic innovations lead to major productivity increases long after they have been invested in. Most historians think the second Industrial revolution (oil, internal combustion, electrification and chemicals) really only began produces major increases in productivity in the 1920s (not coincidentally after mass conscription made replacements of labor with capital imperative). I have heard similar arguments about “digitalization,” i.e., we’ve only began to see the productive results of a generation’s worth of computer infrastructure investment in recent years (say, since 1997). The other is political–there is much more room for “sweated labor” in the Western democracies, especially as the unions are systematically destroyed. Outsourcing and offshoring have been effective in keeping even nominal wage growth stagnant and, in real terms, declining. With both fixed capital and variable capital costs falling, profits are practically falling on those economic actors with the market weight to secure them (corporations and privileged “private equity firms”).
But I do see some overlap with my admittedly primitive analysis and Henwood’s much more elegant discussion you provide us with. Henwood talks about the “decadent” phase of capitalism because having received this windfall of money, the corporations are just shoveling it out to shareholders without investing in what are, after all, rock-bottom priced inputs to production. Very “rentier”-like behavior if you ask me. And why not? The government will make up their losses with various forms of corporate welfare.
Where we differ, I guess, is in thinking this is reaching some sort of tipping point (or maybe we don’t–if capitalism is the crisis, we’ve been in crisis for a long, long time). I personally don’t see it. Since this is essentially an issue of political power, the marriage of economic oligarchy with state power could keep this thing going a long time if people don’t stand up against it. (“In short, our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.”). Neoliberalism begats neofeudalism if we don’t do something about it. Which I know you agree with. But at any rate, you are bringing some heavy economic artillery to bear on my position but I continue to believe the problem is exploitation, not falling proft. Then again, I’ve always has a soft spot in my heart for Dennis the Peasant.

Nick Glossop on June 29, 2012 at 7:53 pm. Reply #

Excellent dialogue gentlemen, but what’s missing for the layman reader are definitions and explications of rent/rentier. How does risky investment on personal peril become certain regular income on state guarantee, how does the dashing, daring, risk-taking entrepeneur become the craven slum lord backed by the local cops, or the fee-taking utility company backed by state contracts.

Please provide illustrations both historical and current with reference to financial and business practice. How does capital migrate to the safety zones?

Matthew on July 4, 2012 at 9:23 am. Reply #

Hey, Nick. Sorry I took so long to get back to you–busy, busy. I’m no expert on this but the classic historical definition of “rentier” activity was the movement to the state from the market. What does that mean? Think about tax farming, the vodka monopoly in Imperial Russia or that rather infamous British company with its tea. Rather than competing with loads of, let us say, small North American merchants with names like, say, Hancock. Much easier to impose your product through monopoly privileges back up by state violence on customers than actually compete. Very often the way in which “rent-seeking” surplants “profit-seeking” in various historical cases has been for the capitalists to move their capital into a fixed commodity, such as land. Most people think only in terms of wages and profits, i.e., labor and capital but the classical economists, especially Smith were always very concerned with rent as not really applying to each (although certainly the application of labor or capital could often increase the rent). Simply put, any resource which is limited and the control a more or less captured market is “rent.” In the old days with discussions of rack-rent, peonage and share-cropping, rents were usually derived (but not only!) from land but mondern economists and political scientists have looked to resource extraction as mirroring the dysfunctional markets of the bad old feudal days with concepts such as the “oil curse.” It is more or less a truism that many political elites are “rent-seeking” in that they seek to extract income using state power from various economic actors (see “corruption” but also “taxes”), but econmic actors can be rent-seeking as well. Maybe the classic move of rent-seeking lately we can notice is the Barclay’s scandal where nobody in the banking community seems to have had a second thought about screwing over millions of customers to rig a system. But rent-seeking is not simply fraud or criminality. As Matt Taibbi has pointed out the “too-big-to-fail” American banks such as Bank of America and Chase have been receiving stunning amounts of capital from the Federal Reserve from programs like TALF to cover their housing bubble losses. And I do mean stunning–Bank of America received 1.1 trillions dollars in zero-interest or very low interest loans from the Fed. To put this in context, such funds granted at such rates to homeowners would have covered every “under water” mortgage in the country. (In other words, the fiscal crisis could have ended three years ago had the government sent its money to lenders rather than creditors). The Federal Reserve made 16 trillion (yes, that’s with a “t”) available to the banks and bank-like entitites which rather than use the money to pay down bad loans and lend money decided that they would simply buy treasury bonds, which provided a small but very sure level profitability on massive capital flows. We will leave out for now the issue of “front-loading” trades which may or may not be legitimate but is also “rent-seeking.” Clearly, in this case the “profits” accruing to the bank aren’t due to any legitimate market mechanism but almost completely within a circuit of state-provided revenue. This may seem like no big deal but remember ultimately taxpayers are victimized for this income to mention nothing of the tremendous opportunity costs of not using state funds for the benefit of citizens (or rather, only a tiny minority of them, such as bankers and bank share holders). I’m not an economist, so I’m probably horribly mangling this discussion of rent, rent-seeking and rentiers. But as I noted, very good economists such as Krugman and Stieglitz, after avoiding the implications of their own analysis, have pointed to this dynamic. Now, from the left, profits and rents may look to be ultimately the same thing (as they did for Smith) but “ultimately” is very different from “proximately” as Smith argued. This is why much of The Wealth of Nations is a sustained attack on monopolies. Converting profit to rent as had happened in his day in Scotland and Ireland (wrack-renting) or with royal monopolies was so obviously conducive to economic suffering that Smith had no compunction in attacking rent-seeking. Remember his quote, “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” was very much directed against rent-seeking through political mechanisms. A simple way of putting this might come from an other quote from the Wealth of Nations: “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” Yup. Pretty much.

Leave a comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

{Optional}


We enjoy healthy debate and respectful conversation at the Paltry Sapien and do not censor based on political or ideological views. Please refrain from commentary that is derogatory to other users, abusive, off-topic, includes too many links, or uses excessive foul-language. Comments are moderated, and will not appear until approved.