There is too much attention to people who have money rather than asking those without money “why?”. I can’t help but feel too many of the “poor” have become lazy and depend too much on a smaller number of achivers to support them.

We have to reverse those sweeping Reform Acts of 20NN laws which were written by the Lobbyists and they are 100% screwing the public and the Treasury.

The Lobbyist knew what they were doing. The Elected Reps (hopefully) knew what was going on. They just sold their soul in exchange with “stuff”, thinking that everything would be fine in Good Times.

Those laws made trillions of dollars of Transfer of Wealth just immoral and unethical, but everything is legal.

A consumer rights commission should go through all the laws that (usually) have “Reform Act” in their names between 2000-2009 and just Reverse them back to what they were.

David (above) pinpoints one of the problems our culture faces and certainly one of the attitudes inherent in the failures of capitalism we’re experiencing. That’s the all-American belief which links money/capital with moral superiority. After Enron, Citi and on and on, you’d think that belief would have slunk away along with other embarrassing prejudices.

David are you serious? Do you really think that people are poor by choice? It’s a lot more complex than that. In the South you had years of segregation and poor education that kept both black and white people of a certain class in poverty. Go to West Virgina if you want to see how generations of poverty have shaped communities and then tell me that people are choosing to live in dire situations that they are in. Poor housing, poor schools, lack of health care, the poor are many things, but lazy and waiting for handouts is such an cop out over used statement made by mean spirited conservatives.

Would David say that Bernie Madoff (who is not poor) is lazy even though he took billions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing? Add the hysterical derivative trader who was yelling about the housing bailout. He can get support from people who don’t know what a derivative is.

Many many people have gotten rich for adding absolutely no value to the society (housing bubble, tech bubble, etc). They didn’t make anything or help anyone. They majored in finance and learned to game the system and take advantage of regulatory loop holes and others’ greed.

The wealth gap will increase as long as the middle class stays ignorant of what’s going on (and of the real definition of socialism”). More middle class people will be looking up to find someone calling them the “lazy poor.”

Dear Tom,

Why, day after day, with so many shows about the economy does it seem like you are unable to find guests who are not from the same institutions (or the same people) who lead us into these disasters to begin with? There are so many economic viewpoints out there, many of whom predicted the failure of this model of economic development (hyper large scale banking) as early as 2000. Why are none of these people the on the radio instead of the same old same old. Where is the variety? Is NPR a forum for open debate or a voice for the crowd who claims that there is no alternative to a economic system that has failed us as a world, a country and an ecosystem?

Mr Katz seemed to imply that WW2 contributed to the recovery from the Great Depression. As Thom Hartmann and others have noted, a case can be made that the war delayed the recovery.

“While gearing up for the war did stimulate and alter the American economy, it’s much easier to argue that WWII actually slowed our recovery from the Great Depression, because it forced FDR to shift so many resources from infrastructure and into disposable instruments of warfare.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/theres-nothing-normal-_b_32532.html

A number of studies have indicated that a dollar of public money spent on the military has the least productive benefit to society compared most other types of spending.

Dear Tom,

After hearing the introduction to your show today I had to turn it off almost before your guests started speaking. I am declining to listen to your show more and more these days because in the face of the economic failure of the American and World economy your show as well as virtually every other show on NPR is failing to question the basic assumptions of our current economic model. For an example take your opening quote “is it possible to change the way the economic pie is sliced while still keeping it growing?” Why not instead ask two more interesting questions, is it necesary to grow the economic pie in a country that can obviously meet the needs of all it’s citizens, in a world that can feed everyone if it chooses? Or even is it possible to “grow the economic pie” on a small blue ball who’s total growth in available energy can be measured in terms of electromagnetic radiation in and out. In such an almost closed system does the economic pie ever really grow, or do we only change the way it is sliced.

Individual (labor) productivity has continued to enjoy massive gains from the industrial revolution right up to today. The question we really need to ask is, “who benefited?” Pay certainly hasn’t increased…indeed, real wages have gone down. And this all *before* the current crisis.

Question:

Without attempting to assess blame on individuals or institutions, how do your guests feel about the joining of banks and brokerage houses through repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act sections that kept banks and brokerage houses separated ?

Conjointly, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission eliminated the so called thousand contract rule at about the same time as when those Glass-Stegall sections, separating banks and brokerage houses, were repealed. One of the results of that regulatory change was the advent of buy only commodity funds that produced a venue for dollars chasing dollars, largely removing commodity pricing from any relationship to supply and demand with large runs ups in price and then collapse.

Were these two milestones, one legislative and the other regulatory, prime movers in the present collapse or were they more benign markers along the way ?

Joe has a point. One of the problems of NPR call-in shows (though, god knows, not nearly as serious a problem as with the major cable and AM egos!) is that the show centers on the host and on in-studio or on-phone guests. With this program as with the Diane Rehm show, the real forward push — the real light and wisdom — comes from listeners calling in. That’s where the fresh ideas are found. The focus of these shows needs to be reconsidered.

I have to agree with much of what JR says. Most of these discussions, today included, seem to presume the ongoing and, apparently, still predominant growth model for the economy, as if resources are still regarded as unlimited.

There seems to be an unquestioned belief among the orthodoxy that the economy as a whole, including production, can grow indefinitely. Hence we can listen to the people of the program today chat on about things as if all the earth’s biological systems were not threatened or stressed to the breaking point by the economic systems they claim to understand.

There needs to be a more public, widespread discussion of the holistic system of economy/ecology/social justice.

Wonderful question from a listener about the evils of extreme wealth!

I have to agree with other comments here about the guests, being pedantic and entirely academic. If either of these guests had actually had jobs inside the economy that they claim to know so well, then perhaps they might be able to understand and articulate the true problems, and solutions that are required.

Indeed, many of the callers had a far superior grasp of how the American economy functions, and what really brought it down, and that supports the point that living and working in the economy, beats reading about it from some historical textbook.

First lets put the points of oligarchy, lobbying, the invisible line between government and corporate America on the table. And once a foundation of truth is laid down, begin the discussion of “slicing the pie”.

I am presently in the final months of COBRA. At about $300/month it is affordable. When I come off COBRA, it will cost me about 2.5x per month as a result of not being in a group. This makes it difficult to afford decent insurance.

I would propose to allow folks to buy into the health insurance at cost provided by either state or federal government to state or federal employees so as to be included in a large population while being assured of a decent plan.

I’ve listened to this show since before Ashbrook took over b/c it is among the better on ‘talk radio’. Today’s first segment was really lacking though.
Tom, as host and moderator you have to weed out the crazies or at least substantively rebut the wing nut opinions that come in from time to time. If I wanted to listen to Rush, I can tune in AM. The caller who wanted to tar Clinton and Fannie Mae for the sub-prime crash should have been rebutted more forcefully. This favorite and wholly mistaken and easily refuted claim is a staple of the right wing echo chamber, shame on you and the guests for not dispensing with this idea.

Increasing wealth inequality due to the bailouts is an invisible scandal. First, most people’s net worth went to zero with their houses. Second, the wealthy took a haircut on stocks. BUT, by then only the wealthy had any net worth left. Thus, increasing inequality. To add insult to injury, the bailout cash is flowing toward the assets of the wealthy.

[...] | Tags: Economics, NPR On Point I flipped on NPR this morning and could not believe my ears http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/03/the-narrowing-wealth-gap/. Claudia Goldin, professor of economics at Harvard University was talking about equalizing housing [...]

I flipped on NPR this morning and could not believe my ears. Claudia Goldin, professor of economics at Harvard University was talking about equalizing housing prices by reforming bankruptcy laws. Right…that just what will make our economic mess better; penalize the person trying to keep a stable roof over the heads of their family. I’m not an educated MBA, or expert on economic theory, but why does the person on bottom have to correct a problem at the top? Don’t they call that regressive economics; like cigarette or liquor taxes where the poor pay a larger majority of their overall income for the same tax. Seems the same to me, since we the individual would be paying a very large portion of our overall income (economic position) to relieve (bail-out) the burden of an industry that by its very structure rewards those with better financial positions. And to benefit that industry by reforming the bankruptcy laws, which would further penalize the individual that files the bankruptcy, is tantamount to giving direct support from the struggling individuals to those that created the structures that created the struggle. Regressive Economics…just another name for slavery.

Why not try this model? Since TARP has funded a large portion of the bank bail out and from my position as a citizen on the street: I have seen no benefit…my credit card was at 31% interest. Why not:
1. Have every primary residence property with an interest rate above 6.5% reappraised.
2. If the appraisal is above the mortgage amount and do nothing, unless the family is having a hardship (i.e. unemployed or underemployed, medical, etc.). If there is a temporary hardship, they would benefit from a housing voucher program for homeowners (such as the Section 8 program for renters where 30% of the household income is paid towards housing items). HUD could administer this program (time limits of the voucher to be related to the actual hardship item).
3. If the appraisal is below the mortgage amount write down the mortgage amount that is over the appraisal, reduce the interest rate to present day par, and reset the mortgage term. This approach could create its own economic stimulus by creating immediate disposable household income. Yes, the bank will take a hit, but haven’t we paid them for taking hits. Stop the bonus plans and parties and get with the plan.
4. If the appraisal reflects the current mortgage amount, but the household can not pay the mortgage amount because of subprime interest rates. Reset the interest rate to par (no ARMs). The bank will take a hit based on loss of opportunity income, but the household will be able to pay. And again, haven’t we paid for the bank bail-out?

I have more thoughts on this topic…and it all comes back to what is the goal of our economic structure…to provide excessive power and wealth in the hands of a select few or to democratize access to resources. Once the goal has been determined, we can outline the steps to get us there. But from my perspective, it seems the question has been answered and those steps have long since been in place: the steps that concentrate wealth in the hands on the few on the backs of the many.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

By: Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

Response to Arnold…

Dr. Adrian’s position is built upon a primary falsehood, which is that “…when half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for…you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” The wealth discrepancy in our society is based on the fact that people receive without effort: Not those that receive our poverty imprisoning national alms (welfare), but those that make deals in back rooms, those whose daddy knows the other’s daddy and in so are given jobs they would never get if they had not had that daddy or other such connection. Old money that favors old money and new money that will do anything to be embraced by the old money. They work; yes they work, at social parties and tennis clubs, golf outings, and charity balls. Those with more work less and those that want to be those with more push their slaves to produce more, so they (the CEO) can have more and work less and press the flesh of those they want to become: old money, new world kings.

Now, some in poverty don’t want to work or don’t like to work, what’s the difference. Oh, yes the difference is that those born into privilege that don’t work are called philanthropists and those born into poverty that don’t work are called leaches. Our society judges a person’s value by the amount of their work, but perhaps we should judge the work by its value to society. Is someone that makes bank deals and robs you your future been of benefit or is that a true leach, someone that sucks the blood of its victim slowly, deliberately, so as to keep the victim alive as long as possible and feed, feed, feed. So, I say what destroys a nation: those that feed in big, glutinous portions or those that take the scraps intentionally left by the glutton to keep the scrounger alive long enough to make the next meal.

Arnold that’s total BS. A lot of the poor are working. Most of them work for very low wages with no benefits.

The other thing your quote forgets is if income tips towards to few getting to wealthy more of the population is left out of the wealth then this is fuel for civic unrest and in the worse case revolutions as in the French revolution.

You have generations of people who are chronically poor through the lack of opportunities, good education and health care.

Then there are the working poor how do most of the heavy lifting in our country. Next time you unpack your bag of groceries remember that the chicken, lettuce and that can of tuna was all processed by a very low wage worker making way below a living wage.

Arnold if a CEO makes 200 million a year and the lowest paid worker in the company makes only 15k a year something is wrong. It’s out of balance and it is also a balance that is artificially set. This is what the conservative and republican forget to mention. you guys always want to blame the little guy. The small poor person who is trying to live off the fat of the land.
Well it does not fly with me mister. People deserve a living wage and decent housing as well as good schools and health care. Of course we could all decide to live in the country you want, a country of gated communities with armed guards for those who can afford it and the rest can live in run down trailer parks and slums.

Arnold you should change your name to Mr. Potter…

your making me sound like George Baily…

Sorry Arnold, but I don’t agree at all with Dr. Adrian Rogers. His simplistic views mimic the now dicredited “trickle down” economic views of Reagan.

It is difficult to dispute the fact that the dominance of Reagan-esque economic theory over the last thirty years has had a primarily negative impact on the economy of this country. During this time, the rich got richer (obscenely so) while very little trickled down to the middle and lower classes. Wage growth for these people stagnated while compensation for the very wealthiest skyrocketed. There are charts documenting how the ratio of CEO compensation to the average worker in his company has gone way up over the last 30 years.

The following statistic that one of the guests cited really stood out for me: between 2000 and 2006, 70% – yes, 70% – of income growth went to the wealthiest 1%.

And yet to some people, anybody complaining about this or to wanting to rectify this imbalance in wealth is a slacker looking for a handout.

I agree with William’s point (10:53 a.m.).

Republicans led by Rush continually push this falsehood about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they tried to get reform, but were shot down by a Democratic filibuster. The problem is, there’s a regularly published document known as the Congressional Record that tells everyone what really happened. Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress, and did not bring the bill to a vote. They simply let it die. Democrats did not filibuster; they never had the opportunity because the Republicans didn’t see the bill as being important enough to be advanced. As Paul Harvey used to say: “Now, you know the rest of the story.”

One other thing that drives me crazy is when the host allows a guest to make multiple statements about what horrors they think are going to happen in the future as a result of some bill passing or some decision by the government. Then, the host asks them a “what if” type of question that the guest doesn’t want to answer, and they let them answer, “I don’t deal in conjecture!” What do you think they dealing in when they forecast gloom and doom! How do you let people get away with this?

On Clinton pushing home buying. This just silly. How many welfare moms were buying Miami condos and flipping houses in Las Vegas? This the called “investors” who are the main culprit of the bubble.

To: Joe Rinehart

It is not Tom. It is the Producer. Actually it is not the Producer. Certain Corporate Donors (they have seats in the Executive Committee/Board) they donate “some” money in and then they control the direction of the entire Station with strings attached.

Trust me, I saw some of these Characters during the meetings. Please come and “make noise” in April. If you don’t make noise in person, they will just ignore us.

I know it is sickening to hear from the same jerks who put us in this position with the hope to show us the direction about how to get out. NO THEY WILL NOT.

LET’S PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.

To the Producers:

Speaking of Guests. How about bringing Elisabeth Warren…. again and again and again.

She is the only and lonely voice out there who is telling us the Truth.

Let’s ask her how we can “Make” the Mortgage Servicing outfits who have bet on Failures and Foreclosures by colluding with Red Zoning Mortgage Thiefs, postpone payments or entirely be kept out of the Contract Negotiations…. instead of Bribing them

Will anybody lose a tear, if they go out of business?

I believe Lawrence Katz handled a question from a caller relating to manufacturing as the base of the economy and the middle class. His answer was that manufacturing is “old economy” and now we need re-education so we can do health care instead.
The theory of comparative advantage says that different countries can produce different exports, such as cameras from Japan and coffee from Columbia. So maybe we can get our manufactured goods from abroad. But we’ve got to export something! We can’t pay our way in the world with health care and suing each other. We’ve got to make something useful to export. Recently, we’ve only been manufacturing worthless derivatives, and no one wants them anymore. So what are we going to make now? Can we support our appetite for Japanese cars, Arab oil and Chinese computers with royalties on movies and pop music? Or shall we just keep on borrowing? I don’t see how we can find a prosperous future without making something tangible. What does Mr. Katz think?

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of income tax receipts.
The bottom 50% pay 3%.

What’s fair?

Arnold is right with his quote. I was going to place it, but he got too before I did. People are poor by circumstance or poor by choice. I am all for helping the poor by circumstance. The poor by choice is another matter. Our welfare system is ruining a generation of people. I am from the south and I see the abuses of people who use the entitlement programs very well. They have made an art form out of it. I am sick of the everyday sight of these people as they con the government out of millions of dollars in taxpayer money. I have worked very hard and long for what little I have and I could care less about the rich having it all. I am content with my position on the economic scale. Maybe the rich should stop working and maybe stop spending. Maybe take their money and talent and leave this country. What really makes me sick is the abuses and the government programs that keep enabling these cons to operate.
* The jobless daddy who has droves of kids,100’s of thousands in court ordered DHR payments to mom, yet will not work, because having no job means no money to pay.
* I could only afford to children, they can have as many as they want. They get them free of charge. Don’t believe it? I see it.
* They get free food,I pay.
* They get choice meats, I get hamburger.
* I carry my groceries to my 11 year old truck, they put theirs in a Caddie. I see it.
* The government builds them a house, they tear it up.
* I make payments, they get supplements.
* I wait in doctors offices, they go to the ER in an ambulance. I know, I am a EMT.
* They know how to get on disability.
* I see the disable party and drink and kick rear-end, but ride a scooter in Wal-mart.
* They get a check and spend it at the dog track.
* I see illegals on welfare, News states that reports will show that nearly 300,000 illegals will fill stimulus funded jobs.
* 25% of kindergarten kids are from Mexico.
* What really gets to me is when they say the government owes them this money, because….
* Welfare money is used to buy drugs. I know!

I am tired of working hard and seeing my hard earned tax money going to so many people who abuse the system. I give to the poor by circumstance without a thought, but the number of abusers is growing and growing and growing. A melting pot can only hold so much! The truly poor need our help the other poor needs to be taught a lesson.

Our economic system is not a zero sum game. If someone becomes well off he did not take it away from someone who is poor. Most successful people in our society became successful by working hard. Most people that are poor in our society are poor due to not working hard.

David I hope your getting some help with the anger management issues. If you lose your job and can’t find another, then you will become poor. I hope for you sake that you don’t end up in this situation, but if you do I guess someone will be ranting about you taking “your tax dollars”.

Where I live I don’t see this at all. The poor are in pretty bad shape and the working poor are sinking lower and lower.

The amount of money the welfare frauds get is pretty small compared to what we give away in tax breaks and incentives ot large corporations.

Our economic system is not a zero sum game. If someone becomes well off he did not take it away from someone who is poor. Most successful people in our society became successful by working hard. Most people that are poor in our society are poor due to not working hard.

Go tell this to laid off coal miners in West Virginia, or to the laid off DHL workers in Wilmington, Ohio.

It’s not that black and white and for you to make it so speaks volumes about you more than the poor who you seem to like to use as your whipping post.

There is a Biblical statement, “the poor will always be among you.” As a Christian, I am to help the poor who are truly poor, I do that as best I can. We will never pull the poor out of poverty totally. You may succeed by pulling one out of poverty, only to see another take his place in poverty. We live in a high-tech world with an ever increasing standard of living. Unless you keep up with education, you are left behind, if you discourage and punish achievement, it will leave. If the country loses its brightest, it will fill up with those who will always be in need of help. If we could replace greed with compasssion, what a world we could be. If we take from the rich, they will probably close their wallets. There are many rich people who do great things for the poor with their wealth. A poor man by circumstance wants only to do what it takes to provide for himself and his family. He does not like handouts. The poor by choice wants it all for himself and the things he wants. He loves handouts and he thinks the world owes him. Sure,fraud in the eyes of some does little to hurt our economy;but,a little leaven,leavens the whole bread. One bad apple ruins the whole barrel. We need a good house cleaning in this country.

Jeffe, I hope you move to Europe or some other socalist country…this is America…we don’t belive in this failed socalist ideas that “the wealthy did not earn their money”…it’s time to grow up and stop misleading the “poor”….40 years after the “great society” programs and the libs still say it’s not enough…when are we going to challenge the poor?….

Your not a Christian David, you think you are but your a right wing conservative who dumps on people who can’t help themselves. Don’t tell me where to live. Who are you to dictate to anyone. You show your true colors, intolerant and extreme right wing, and ready for a dictator. Your language is full fascistic leanings, as in Mein Kampf.

“The poor by choice wants it all for himself and the things he wants. He loves handouts and he thinks the world owes him. Sure,fraud in the eyes of some does little to hurt our economy;but,a little leaven,leavens the whole bread. One bad apple ruins the whole barrel. We need a good house cleaning in this country.”

I could substitute Jew, or Black or any other minority for poor, your statement is right out of language used by nazis to demonize Jews.

David you also keep talking about “we”, as if you speak for some kind of majority. I don’t see any majority in this country advocating what you are.

Jeffe, you feel sorry for the poor…feeling sorry does not get the poor a job…giving them food stamps, section 8 housing, etc..does not lift them up..if it did…why are there more poor now?..you need to get tougher…start a business like I did…hire the poor like I did…own rental property and rent out to section 8 poor people..like I did…then you will see the ugly side of the failed socialist ideas…tough love works….