The Overdue Makeover of the American Way, ‘Lagom': Income Inequality, the ’85’ & ‘Working for the Few’, The Third Metric

This is the third reblog of a 2009 piece i wrote about the need for a Swedish-style makeover , ‘Lagom’ (moderation and balance), of American cultural values in light of the 2008 recession...and especially the somewhat obscene map-redistribution (upwards) of wealth and income during the so-called ‘recovery’ since then. The last reblog was June 2012, '"LAGOM": A New Life Style for Post Recession Americans’. Arianna Huffington’s ‘The Third Metric’ way of redefining and measuring the value of one’s life, lifestyle, mode of living, life philosophy and self-evolution is much in tune with ‘Lagom’.

This time, I am motivated to reblog about Lagom, by Robert Kall’s January 25, 2014, piece in OpEdNews, 'Needed: A Science, Economics and Lifestyle of SMALL-- It's Time to Face Reality-- Too BIG is Too Dangerous--‘, where Kall notes:

'Too big is not just about too big to fail banks. Nature abhors just about anything that is too big. Giganitism is an abnormality that, in humans and most life forms, leads to pathology or death. The same is true about things humans create-- companies, government, political and economic systems, megastores, megachurches, the 85 billionaires. who own as much as half of the seven billion planetary inhabitants.'

Ah, the newly arisen mega-monster, ’The 85’. January 21, 2014, Huffingtonpost summarized a January 21, 2014, Oxfam analysis (“Working for the Few”)that the richest 85 individuals around the globe (1 % of global population) own, possess or control more than collectively owned by half (50%)the globe’s humans! With a global population currently around 7.14 Billion, this means each of the ’85’ owns as much as 84 million ‘lesser’ human beings. Question, ‘is this a palatable outcome of economic ‘freedom’?

Does this extreme wealth imbalance deserve to be preserved at all costs much like a sacred icon of the lesser god, money? Or, is such extreme imbalance a sign of gross disfunction, a pathology as Kall suggests?. As Kall notes (his writing is one of my fav reference points):

'The problem is, as Lord Acton observed, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I would argue that there are so many risks and dangers in giving people the ability to accumulate huge amounts of money and the power that comes with it, that we should put limits on wealth...'

‘Lagom’ is a Swedish philosophy of day-to-day living that emphasizes the quality of life over material accumulation - of living in moderation, sufficiency, balance and sustaining our world. More and more is being written, with increasing alarm and fretting, that America and indeed the global village need to find options to free-market capitalism, the presumed driving force behind the Industrial Revolution that now seems to be not only a barrier to progress but, unless we find a path away from it, we might end up self-destructing. In the absence of an active pursuit of safe, alternative energy - are we held back by technology (unlikely) or are we stymied by the petro-lobbyists (very likely)?. How many more Fukushima’s (March, 2011, nuclear reactor melt-down in Japan) can we, the globe and not only America, sustain?

The recession lingers. The ‘unemployed’ has lost meaning because so many have given up looking for a job thus skewing the BLS curves to where few know or can guess. This recession hasn't finished teaching us that the American idolizing of the Darwinian-capitalist pursuit of riches, where a neighbor in difficulty automatically becomes a "loser" to be put out of mind and forgotten, just doesn't cut it when "we" are coming close to becoming one of "them".

This recession is marked by a frightening prospect of overnight conversion from ‘plush-to-bust' that can reach all levels, just, post-recession, ask Bernie Madoff's “clients” (to refer to a now classic meme). We all feel the anxiety of material failure, of being second, of being the loser even when we are nicely comfortable...for the moment. When, in our daily pursuit to hang on, we have the rare moment to pause and think about things, we intuit that ‘it’ doesnt make sense. But, who has the time to contemplate when we are so driven to materially excel and garner more than our neighbor in the race to see who next will be the winner, or loser.

The essence of this recession is the repeat of a lesson that the wild-frontier, laissez faire (self-regulated, NOT!) capitalism ala Ayn Rand is just a dream; actually a dangerous nightmare because it creates a make-believe theater of false fronts and actors in false face where "dollars are the ultimate". Repeatedly, with each new generation of Americans who are not schooled about past economic collapses and who eagerly join the race to grab the brass ring and win the carnival doll, these falsities come tumbling down killing the fortunes and hopes of many many people, families, countries.

However, America is not down and out for good. We can move on to a higher level of maturity by adopting a life style of moderation, suitability (LAGOM) from one of the most advanced cultures on the planet, and perhaps the culture with the highest standard of living and certainly the first or second highest in cultural well being, Sweden.

In Sweden, cultural happiness can be summarized in the following observation about purely economic success (which seems to be the current way America values itself):

For all its prominence, GDP is only one yardstick of economic performance and it is no guide to social progress. It simply indicates the market value of all goods and services produced in an economy. It takes no account of how income is shared out, or of how it is generated. Few would celebrate a boom in costly divorce cases – but it would be great for GDP.

America is ready for a new way of living life. It is in our best interest to try a new way of valuing living life rather than material accumulations.

It is time to try "Lagom".

"LAGOM" has no exact translation in English. But good translations of lagom are: "enough, sufficient, adequate, just right". Lagom is also widely translated as "in moderation", "in balance", "optimal", and "suitable", also "sustainable" as a way of life.

Lagom also carries the connotation of perfection through appropriateness.

The value of "just enough" can be contrasted to the value of "more is better". It is viewed favorably as a sustainable alternative to the hoarding extremes of consumerism

"Lagom" is said to describe the basis of the Swedish national psyche,..of consensus and equality. It is ... to be modest and avoid extremes.

Similar to Lagom" is the Middle Path in Eastern philosophy, and Aristotle's "golden mean" of moderation in Western philosophy.

So, America, let's have "Lagom" meals; "Lagomish" houses, cars, and visible material wealth in general.

Income & Wealth Inequality 2: Realistic Taxation Might Help

Re: 'It's Economic Inequality Stupid -- What to Do About the Biggest Crisis Facing America’
[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/its-economic-inequality-s_b_4273787.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications ]

Robert CreamerPolitical Organizer, Strategist, Author; Partner Democracy Partners

Mr. Cremer mentions that economically the wellbeing of the middle and working poor classes have been on a downtrend or static for decades:

Today, to qualify for the top 1%, your family has to have an income of at least $394,000 -- and the average income of the top 1% of the population is $717,000. The average for the rest of the population is $51,000. The difference in net worth is even more stark. The top 1% have net assets that average $8.4 million. That would be 70 times the average net worth of the rest of the population.

And this inequality is growing. In 2012, the share of income flowing to the top 1% soared to almost 20% of the income generated by the entire economy. That is the highest level since 1927 - the height of the "Roaring 20's" that set the stage for the Great Depression.

This increase in income and wealth inequality has gone on for some time. According to a study by UC Berkeley economist Emmaunuel Saez, from 1993 to 2012 average real income for the bottom 99% of the population increased 6.6%. Average real income for the top 1% went up 86%. In other words, over the last two decades, the top 1 percent received two thirds of the overall economic growth in real income per family.

“

...who did nothing to earn these fortunes except benefit by the accident of birth.

”

This is often heard but despite being born iINTO wealth a child is never born guilty ‘a priori’ as implied. It also seems ‘whimsy’ to tax the rich too quickly and heavily just as it is unfair to tax lesser income strata more than their commensurate ABILITY TO PAY, so ‘less wealthy’ classes should have a lesser tax rate than the rich. The country needs to evaluate exactly what ‘fair’ means and what for what PURPOSE(s) do our taxes really serve!

What exactly is our national tax purpose? Is it simply to make the rich pay their ‘fair share’ whatever that might be and even-out the tax impact? Or, to accumulate government surpluses just because it sounds good? Or, as an optional purpose, one might propose a ‘TAX ENOUGH’ policy that focuses on meeting a few significant objectives but leaves a goodly amount of monies in circulation for jobs, investment, risk etc.

What is the real-life tax impact on our socio-economic classes? Can we even guess at taxation equivalencies?

Oversimplifying, a quick look at tax reform might start with a simple ‘equation': increase the ‘rich’ tax rate but not to de-motivate investment and risk; give the middle class relief by tax reductions and/or tax-reduction-equivalents (college credits, national health care, family tax credits, etc); and give the working poor emergency relief that prioritizes the concept that ‘WORKING POOR’ is not a permanent class but a temporary condition. And above all, avoid the conservative POV that a ‘good’ social policy is one that is punitive in spirit and result, i.e., one that ‘strikes the fear of God’ into the minds and spirits of the taxed...as if America is mired forever in the past battles between the Shires and Robin Hood - a too-easily referenced template left over from America’s core roots in feudal Europe.

MBA Follies - About the ‘Common Good’: A Battle between the Citizen and Corporate Ownership-for-profit

This post was motivated by Noam Chomsky’s recent op-ed in ’Nation of Change’ webzine, ('What Is The Common Good?’),that focuses on a seemingly increasing and critical lessening of importance, and increasing fuzziness, of being a human citizen in America. This blogger maintains this is a crisis time because it appears the requirements of traditionally defined citizens (i.e., human) are competing somewhat unsuccessfully with corporate wishes, influence and priorities that are often in conflict with, are ignorant of, or just plain unconcerned and callous about the quality of life of normal citizens. The results are persistent erosion of our natural environments, depletion of natural resources even those that are replenishable but require husbanding and planned harvesting (our fisheries) and a general rush to perdition in the interests of corporate quarterly profit reports.

Professor Chomsky summarizes this problem of citizen vs state as not new but a continued debate from even the era of Aristotle 2400 years ago. Chomsky brings the debate into ‘current’ focus at the moment of the formation of America and summarizes the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson who was the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence and served as the third president of the United States:

Thomas Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States’ Declaration of Independence, captured the essential nature of the conflict, which has far from ended. Jefferson had serious concerns about the quality and fate of the democratic experiment. He distinguished between “aristocrats and democrats.”

The aristocrats are “those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.”

The democrats, in contrast, “identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interest.”

Today the successors to Jefferson’s “aristocrats” might argue about who should play the guiding role: technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals, or bankers and corporate executives.

Pericles21 has for several years posed this same broad question, 'what has happened to the notion of the citizen?' Has America lost it’s sense, along with its senses, about what is the purpose of a nation and whom does a nation exist to serve - human citizens or corporate enterprise? Where along the path so far in this nation’s history have we detoured to value ‘signs’ of wealth (not health) such as material possessions, wealth in itself beyond even expanded wants, and acted-out greed, above social needs and individual happiness, physical health, education, child nurturing and spiritual well being?

From Pericles21’s commentary added at the end of Professor Chomsky’s article:

American culture appears to be facing the ‘depletion’ of room for its human citizens (note, now, the break-out of 'citizenry' into subcategories) to co-exist with their corporate co-citizens whose sole responsibility is the quarterly financial report; and whose regard for human citizenry is focused on their usefulness as a labor pool, a flexible (disposable) pool at that. In this respect, the labor pool is respected only as long as employed by the corporation who assumes nothing about the welfare of laborers outside the corporation’s physical and fiscal boundaries, the plant or office walls and the employee list.

Question, ‘is the human citizen to accept this status? Or, more accurately, ‘can’ the human citizen accept its new status - a status defined as co-equal to a sister population that does not eat, breathe, drink, care for its children, etc., and consequently does not need healthy, safe food and water, does not need to nurture a child, support an education system, nurture a spiritual life and carelessly and without conscience tosses aside surplus labor whenever they are not needed. Note: a great many, increasingly too many, American workers are not owed more than 24 hours notice of layoff. All of these human ‘requirements’ not met by corporations seem to be leading to a ‘Crisis of Choice’ for human citizens in America - accept second-class status according to a new democracy (for humans citizens) regardless of race, creed, etc. - or, what? As yet, no optional theories for coexistence are being formulated? While the corporate ‘American’ citizen is free to roam the globe seeking the lowest-cost labor, and is often freed (by special interest lobbying) from any tax loyalties to America, yet, the human citizen labor pool, unneeded and cast aside must (?) remain in place within America, ...unless we become the next global pool of low-paid migrant labor available (forced) to work in foreign industrial zones.

Question - what is the process whereby elected, human, Americans willingly fall into place and support the corporate citizenry in this madness? WHAT QUEER, ILLOGICAL, UN-COMMONSENSICAL LOGIC MOTIVATES SCOTUS TO INTERPRET THAT CORPORATIONS MERIT EQUAL CONSIDERATION OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND PRIVILEGES (E.G., CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTING) AS HUMAN CITIZENS???

These thoughts are repeated more and more often now even by concerned (and thinking) Conservatives. and, it appears the critical point has yet to be reached. What will be the nature of that critical point - a fundamental collapse of our natural environment or resources? A serious calling of ‘time out’ by the grass roots (human)? Or, will we stand and watch with wringing of hands as it all goes down the drain?