TR EMERITUS

(27 Jun) - An insidious trend has developed over this past third of a century. A country that experienced shared growth after World War II began to tear apart, so much so that when the Great Recession hit in late 2007, one could no longer ignore the fissures that had come to define the American economic landscape. How did this “shining city on a hill” become the advanced country with the greatest level of inequality? One stream of the extraordinary discussion set in motion by Thomas Piketty’s timely, important book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” has settled on the idea that violent extremes of wealth and income are inherent to capitalism. In this scheme, we should view the decades after World War II — a period of rapidly falling inequality — as an aberration. This is actually a superficial reading of Mr. Piketty’s work, which provides an institutional context for understanding the deepening of inequality over time. Unfortunately, that part of his analysis received somewhat less attention than the more fatalistic-seeming aspects. Over the past year and a half, The Great Divide, a series in The New York Times for which I have served as moderator, has also presented a wide range of examples that undermine the notion that there are any truly fundamental laws of capitalism. The dynamics of the imperial capitalism of the 19th century needn’t apply in the democracies of the 21st. We don’t need to have this much inequality in America. Our current brand of capitalism is an ersatz capitalism. For proof of this go back to our response to the Great Recession, where we socialized losses, even as we privatized gains. Perfect competition should drive profits to zero, at least theoretically, but we have monopolies and oligopolies making persistently high profits. C.E.O.s enjoy incomes that are on average 295 times that of the typical worker, a much higher ratio than in the past, without any evidence of a proportionate increase in productivity. If it is not the inexorable laws of economics that have led to America’s great divide, what is it? The straightforward answer: our policies and our politics. People get tired of hearing about Scandinavian success stories, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden, Finland and Norway have all succeeded in having about as much or faster growth in per capita incomes than the United States and with far greater equality... The American political system is overrun by money. Economic inequality translates into political inequality, and political inequality yields increasing economic inequality. In fact, as he recognizes, Mr. Piketty’s argument rests on the ability of wealth-holders to keep their after-tax rate of return high relative to economic growth. How do they do this? By designing the rules of the game to ensure this outcome; that is, through politics. So corporate welfare increases as we curtail welfare for the poor. Congress maintains subsidies for rich farmers as we cut back on nutritional support for the needy. Drug companies have been given hundreds of billions of dollars as we limit Medicaid benefits. The banks that brought on the global financial crisis got billions while a pittance went to the homeowners and victims of the same banks’ predatory lending practices. This last decision was particularly foolish. There were alternatives to throwing money at the banks and hoping it would circulate through increased lending. We could have helped underwater homeowners and the victims of predatory behavior directly. This would not only have helped the economy, it would have put us on the path to robust recovery. OUR divisions are deep. Economic and geographic segregation have immunized those at the top from the problems of those down below. Like the kings of yore, they have come to perceive their privileged positions essentially as a natural right. How else to explain the recent comments of the venture capitalist Tom Perkins, who suggested that criticism of the 1 percent was akin to Nazi fascism, or those coming from the private equity titan Stephen A. Schwarzman, who compared asking financiers to pay taxes at the same rate as those who work for a living to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Our economy, our democracy and our society have paid for these gross inequities. The true test of an economy is not how much wealth its princes can accumulate in tax havens, but how well off the typical citizen is — even more so in America where our self-image is rooted in our claim to be the great middle-class society. But median incomes are lower than they were a quarter-century ago. Growth has gone to the very, very top, whose share has almost quadrupled since 1980. Money that was meant to have trickled down has instead evaporated in the balmy climate of the Cayman Islands... The problem of inequality is not so much a matter of technical economics. It’s really a problem of practical politics. Ensuring that those at the top pay their fair share of taxes — ending the special privileges of speculators, corporations and the rich — is both pragmatic and fair. We are not embracing a politics of envy if we reverse a politics of greed. Inequality is not just about the top marginal tax rate but also about our children’s access to food and the right to justice for all. If we spent more on education, health and infrastructure, we would strengthen our economy, now and in the future. Just because you’ve heard it before doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it again. We have located the underlying source of the problem: political inequities and policies that have commodified and corrupted our democracy. It is only engaged citizens who can fight to restore a fairer America, and they can do so only if they understand the depths and dimensions of the challenge. It is not too late to restore our position in the world and recapture our sense of who we are as a nation. Widening and deepening inequality is not driven by immutable economic laws, but by laws we have written ourselves.   More in: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/inequality-is-not-inevitable/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0  Read More →

When you have civil servants paid from $300,000 onwards, it's inevitable they miss the disconnect. Instead of looking for ways and means to cut costs and reduce public transportation charges, they are forever cooking up ideas to splurge to the hilt. Any financial relief is welcome now, in the wake of the Medishield Life premium hikes. Do we really need entertainment videos at train stations when the jam packed coaches afford only views of the smelly armpit of another unhappy commuter, 1 of 3 which is likely to be non-Singaporean? They had a failed attempt once installing mobile video on buses, at an undisclosed cost which was probably passed on to the passengers. When that system was canned, and video service terminated, no fare reduction materialised. The "heritage videos" they are planning to showcase at station platforms won't be coming in cheap. Keep the propaganda videos and offer fare rebates instead. Commuters would rather have a shorter wait for a ride than hanging around the station for the 5 or 10 minute "content which is meaningful, informational and entertaining." "Expect more entertainment to make time pass a little faster" seems to be a coded message implying longer waiting time for a train is inevitable, despite all the broken promises to speed up the train service. The congestion at the station during peak hours is barely sustainable as it is, do we need to add buskers to the crowd? Train stations are key to a quick clearing system, so that tired workers can go home promptly to their family and recover from the grind at the office or factory place. As it is, most leave their house before the sun rises, and return only after the sun has set. The only people who would hang around a train station are those looking at it as a novelty, not an essential transportation hub that need to be processed efficiently and speedily.   Tattler * The writer blogs at http://singaporedesk.blogspot.com/    Read More →

LTA has announced that it will be introducing new social initiatives to make commuters’ journeys more palatable and encourage commuters to smile. Some of the new initiatives which LTA will be trying out in the next few months include: Buskers performing at train platforms Elaborately-decorated themed carriages Staff clutching stuffed toy or flowers and giving out tissues to welcome commuters Efforts are already under way to upgrade ageing train infrastructure and improve service quality, but these projects will take years to bear fruit. In the meantime, LTA hopes that its social initiatives will help make commuters’ train journeys "a little less harried". LTA Director of Corporate Transformation and Futures, Agnes Kwek, said that LTA is seeking to improve the train experience in every possible way. "Public transport is very much a shared social space and our interactions with other commuters affect our train experience,” she said. “We’re launching a series of trials to foster a positive commuter culture - be it behaviour, interaction or atmosphere.” Kicking off the initiatives is a football-themed cabin on the North-South Line. It comes decked with 3-D turf grass and soccer ball toys, as well as stickers of a football pitch and prints of cleats directing commuters to the middle of the cabin: The LTA is also planning to have buskers performing at train platforms, in a tie-up with the National Arts Council (NAC). This will not only add vibrancy to the stations and make the public transport experience more interesting, but will also provide an additional platform for performers to showcase their talents, the LTA said. Five MRT stations have been chosen for the trial to allow buskers to perform at the train platforms, starting from July: Jurong East City Hall Raffles Place Eunos Bukit Batok Buskers will perform during the morning and evening peak hours. They can also collect donations. LTA said it will monitor commuters' response while ensuring that "commuter flow will not be impeded" during the trial. It added that it will later consider allowing buskers to perform inside the trains. If the trial is successful, LTA will consider implementing the initiatives at other stations too. Before the announcement of the trial, a test run was actually conducted last month at Jurong East, City Hall and Raffles Place MRT stations. LTA said commuters’ response was positive. Buskers who performed at last month's test run were also positive. Ms Chen Qing Ying, who played the guzheng at Raffles Place and City Hall MRT stations told the media, “Sometimes, when people are waiting for the train, they are probably feeling anxious ... If there is music, they can listen while they wait and time can pass a little faster.” Another busker who hailed from the Philippines but now stays in Woodlands, Ms Leticia Habon Caya [Link][Link], said her 20-minute performance at Jurong East MRT Station had “felt exclusive because it was within the platform”. (Photo: Ms Leticia Habon Caya's Facebook page) Meanwhile, some netizens were not too impressed with LTA's latest "social initiatives" [Link]: Arsene_Wenger: Fare got increase?? ngensys2000: You want to make it less stressful for commuters? Reduce influx of FTs. rongguang: reduce FT and reduce transport fees will help reduce stress snap99: Stop wasting money and every year ask for fare increase la blu_black: which joker scholar came up with this genius idea? stillgottheblues: A bunch of bloody jokers. Please go back to the basics. złoty: solve the root cause of the unhappiness Another netizen commented: baijiazi: already no space to squeeze in liao... still put ppl there to take up space?? Do you think the following commuters will be able to enjoy the performances from the buskers at the train platforms: What do you think?  Read More →