We have become a profoundly unequal society. That reality is explored in new detail in a recent study from the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET). Even more importantly, the INET study shows that it will take a dramatic shift in policy to restore the equilibrium. Unless we can build momentum for a new political agenda, we’ll be divided into a small minority with fabulous wealth and a permanent underclass with few hopes or prospects.
I don't see a lot of new ideas here. Warren and Sanders are decent people, but hardly revolutionary thinkers. Electorally, we have a choice between Republicans stuck in the dark ages and Democrats stuck in the 20th century. The best they can do is some watered-down New Deal policies that ultimately preserved the status quo.
The system needs to be challenged at its roots. There is something fundamentally immoral with an economic system that lets kids go hungry while a few men and women gain more wealth than any monarch in history. They are backed by a sick economics profession that has degenerated into a religion -- a religion that demands child sacrifice on the alter of their god -- the Free Market. A religion which says that their god is perfect and omniscient, and therefore, the only thing ordinary mortals can do is to bow to its perfection.
What's absolutely clear is that our current economic-social system is fundamentally unjust: Some work their fingers to the bone and don't earn enough to feed their families. Others have so much they don't know what to do with it -- so they end up buying our representatives. It's also clear that the change we need can't come from within the electoral system. It's rigged by the wealthy.
Historically, positive change has always come from the bottom up. Unions pushed for and succeeded in making a number of real gains in the 20th century, but as I see it, these gains are being eroded in large part because they didn't go far enough, and didn't challenge the system deeply enough.
As Ralph Nader has said, we need to ask "who owns and who controls." Do we want to continue the current system -- a plutocracy cloaked as a democracy, or do we want a system truly is "of the people, by the people and for the people"?
What does the message "the Politics of envy" really mean?
It translates to I got MINE. I want MORE. You must not look at MINE if you want enough.
Democrats, Republicans. No difference. Capitalism is predicated upon inequality.It can not exist or for that matter create wealth without creating inequality. Those that wish to see an end to inequality can not at the same time support Capitalism.
Or perhaps even "I got MINE, now give me YOURS!"
Our ridiculous "two-party system" -- which actually is one party, dominated by the rich and powerful -- finally is being called out. Ordinary people are fed up, and rightly so. But everyone should understand that our political system is really just a game, an elaborate distraction, and does not reflect the way power is wielded in Washington or in the state capitals. Republicans understand this very well and often openly snicker at the elaborate rituals of politics. Most Democrats, especially the experienced ones, also understand it, but pretend not to, being obliged to feign interest in helping average folks. America's real problem is that we have no way of improving our political system because those in charge of the government benefit enormously from the status quo. And the election system is rigged to favor incumbents, especially those serving the rich and powerful. So nothing changes, except to get more and more corrupt and inefficient. America is beginning to decline sharply in many areas when compared to other nations, and that trend is not likely to improve any time soon.
The 99% must unite in refusing to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. we DO NOT NEED A THIRD PARTY.
opps, pushed the wrong button by accident.
We need NO pollitical parties at all. The working people of this nation need to find good honest moral people in their district to run for Congress. They must only support candidates that promise to vote as directed by the living breathing human beings who live in the district. The Candidate must promise to set up a web site where they will list all the bills coming up for a vote in the next few weeks. The whole bill and a summary of it must be on the web site with arguments for and against the bill and links to get more information. In the last week before the Servant of the People (never mind a phony 'representative') MUST vote as directed by the majority of the constituents who take the effort to advise the elected official. The vote tally must be listed as the votes come in. The constituents voting must declare under oath that they are registered to vote and they LIVE IN THE DISTRICT. This is DIRECT DEMOCRACY and that is what we need to get rid of the horrible level of corruption in our government. Let's have some democracy in the United States of America!
"It is time for a genuinely progressive social and political dialogue to take center stage". Amerika will never have such a dialogue as long as the amerikan people keep voting for the "either/or" candidates. Amerika's only choice during any election cycle over the last forty years has been the "either" far right wing candidates/"or" moderate republicans calling themselves the "democratic party! If amerika is ever going to change the situation they find themselves in, then they are going to make a very hard turn to port (left) and elect real, not make believe Socialist candidates. The real Socialist candidates that brought us trade unions, the forty hour work week, time and a half pay, paid vacations and holidays, public schools, public libraries, post office banking! Many amerikans don't even have a clue that their community police and fire departments are socialist in nature, or that the two largest socialist institutions in amerika are run by the federal government, the US Military and the Veterans Administration! Get with it or just roll over and play dead amerika!
"So why aren’t any leading politicians offering solutions that might actually work? The answer may lie in the “quandary” that the New York Times described for the Hillary Clinton campaign: “how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy” – the same individuals who are presumably expected to fund her campaign.
But there are ways to address that quandary. One is to recognize that struggling Americans want and need economic reformation, not personal vilification."
If I understand this correctly, someone thinks that avoiding "personal vilification" will allow candidates to get votes by saying they're going to dismantle 35+ years of right wing concentration of wealth and income while collecting, from the very wealthy in whose hands that concentration has put the money, the billions of dollars it will take to get a progressive majority elected nationally.
What are you smoking?