#Economic Justice

[liberaljane]

[fenrislorsrai]

Justice 40

Joe Biden is boring and often bad at tooting his own horn, but by god, he is good at process.

Justice 40 is simple but powerful application of that. its a shift in how the executive branch works. 40% of money from a bunch of existing programs should go to census tracts that are overburdened with pollution, at higher risk for climate change, and have been historically underserved.

The shorthand here is basically "communities that don't have enough internal resources to deal with long term problems". So yes, communities that had been redlined for decades, ones that have Superfund sites, ones that have high rates of asthma from air pollution.

and this is by census tract. Not city. census tract. So parts of New York City qualify... but other parts don't. And the city HAS to use the money in the targeted part. it doesn't go into the communal pool. it's for THAT tract specifically.

Also all land federally recognized as belonging to a Native American tribe and all Alaskan Native Villages qualify, specifically.

And again, this is for existing programs that are already running and have existing staff and budgets. They're supposed to prioritize grants and projects for those areas specifically. And that's everything from Department of Agriculture, to FEMA, to Labor, to Environmental Protection.

Does it instantly get rid of all the baked in racism from decades past? No, not even close. But it puts in a countermeasure that has a concrete and measurable goal to aim for rather than a nebulous "suck less." even if the administration changes, many of those changes will stick.

And as things improve, some tracts may come off the list! Some may go on that weren't there before!

You can see a map here. Blue highlighted tracts are "disadvantaged" so qualify for that extra assistance! Check and see if you live in one or part of your town does. Because if you've been hearing constantly "we can't afford to fix X problem..." and you're in that tract.... there's money available. For you. Build that sidewalk, fix those lead pipes, get that brush truck your volunteer fire department has been asking for.

And tell your local officials that! "did you look at Justice 40 for funding". And even if they're doing their best, particularly people in little towns.... being a government official isn't their full time job. They may have missed it. Just asking them about the program may suddenly open a world of possibilities.

[mswyrr]

[politijohn]

Source

Eat the rich

[alwaysbewoke]

[gnome-punk]

Artist credit:

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

Eating a rich person can feed a family of four for a few months.

But:

Taxing a rich person can feed a whole community for many years.

[hombrepolitico]

Average

It is so hard to communicate how extreme the income distribution is in the US. Exponential is not sufficient to model it. And income distribution is more even than wealth!

From the World Economic Forum.

Notice the funky log scale on the x-axis.

[violetgroans]

So, the Luigi Mangione situation has been consuming my thoughts for days. Honestly, I’m surprised to see even those who typically consume right-wing media starting to connect the dots.

Kyle Rittenhouse was hailed as an “American patriot” and a “hero” by right-wing media like Fox and co, not because they’re anti-establishment but because they blindly support the establishment. After his acquittal, conservative media framed his actions as self-defence, the ultimate embodiment of “law and order.” But let’s be honest—this wasn’t about justice or morality. It was about doubling down on a toxic gun culture, one that upholds violence as a virtue when it aligns with their politics.

Take Donald Trump, for example. He’s their golden boy, the so-called saviour of the working class, but what did he actually do for anyone struggling to make ends meet? He gave billionaires a massive tax break, slashing corporate rates to 21% and leaving crumbs for everyone else. Universal healthcare? Forget it. Trump spent years trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act without even pretending to offer an alternative. And wages? They stagnated while he bragged about a booming economy. He couldn’t stop talking about low petrol prices—as if that fixes lives ruined by medical debt or the soaring cost of living. Meanwhile, his obsession with fracking wasn’t about energy independence; it was about making oil companies richer.

Trump’s entire existence is proof that capitalism rewards incompetence if you’re born into the right family. He’s failed at business after business, but the money and connections always find their way back to him, bringing power along for the ride.

Now compare that to someone like Luigi Mangione. Here’s a guy from a privileged background—an Ivy League graduate, no less—who allegedly assassinated UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, Brian Thompson. And why? Because Mangione had seen enough of the system Thompson profited from: a healthcare industry that lets people die while executives rake in bonuses. Mangione reportedly left behind a manifesto condemning health insurance companies for putting profits over people. Even Daily Mail readers, who’d normally back the establishment, are expressing sympathy for him and calling out billionaires. When even the most propagandised audiences are waking up, you know something’s wrong.

This isn’t complicated: poverty kills. Debt kills. And billionaires like Thompson—who faced criticism for policies that punished patients seeking emergency care—are perfectly comfortable profiting off that suffering. They sit in their towers, insulated from the consequences of the system they exploit, while working-class people are forced to choose between survival and dignity.

What billionaires should really fear is us realising we’ve been played. For decades, they’ve worked to convince us our biggest threats are each other—minorities, immigrants, anyone but them—when they’re the ones pulling the strings. Without our labour and endless, soul-crushing consumption, they’re nothing.

Do I feel bad for a billionaire who’s scared? Not in the slightest. They don’t know fear the way we do. They don’t have to worry about eviction notices or medical bills. They’ve convinced us their success is aspirational, but it’s all a con—a rigged game that keeps them on top no matter what.

I hope the Luigi Mangione case sparks a backlash they can’t ignore. I hope it forces people to confront how deeply this system has failed us. The media will try to spin it, of course. They’re already working to humanise people like Thompson, men who built their careers on denying claims and leaving sick people to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, these same journalists won’t write about kids being pushed into poverty or the way empathy disappears when a rapist gets elected to office. It’s so absurd it feels like a cruel joke—like we’re being manipulated for laughs as reason abandons our collective psyche.

People have turned this murder into a meme, and they’re being condemned for it. But billionaires, propped up by the likes of Murdoch, have relied on our desensitisation for decades to amass wealth and control political narratives. The internet makes that harder for them now, and they know it.

And people are tired. We misdirect our anger into the wrong places, often at each other, and can you blame us? What have protests actually accomplished lately? Millions marched for Palestine—one of the largest demonstrations in recent memory—but did it stop the US or UK from backing Netanyahu? Of course not.

So where do they think all this frustration is going to go? Because one day, it’s going to boil over—and no amount of money or media spin will protect them.

[meramyst18]

With all this Luigi Mangione thing going around, I'd like to give my opinion and it is that, like many of us, we are not violent people. I don't believe violence is the answer to anything, but, sadly, this thing that happened was the result of the neglect and selfishness of a society that's more focused on making money than taking care of people.

There is a point where you simply can't take it anymore, I am not happy because someone died, I am angry and sad because our people have to go to these extremes such as killing a CEO so maybe, and just maybe, the billionaires and the people that are supposed to take care of us might listen to our pain.

If you think you're in a moral high ground because you condemn what Luigi did, let me tell you that the man he killed didn't even hesitate to kill somebody by denying their treatment in order to get more money and fill his pockets even more. At the end of the day, and like I said, we should dig deeper and find out that this is the result of a society that is no longer working and we desperately need a change.

I know I'm gonna sound cheesy, but I know that if we fight for a society that's directed on love and community, things are gonna be so much better, and that's why we can't rely on the people that only care about one thing and it is how much money they can get from you.

Rely on the people, create a community, be the change you wanna see because no matter how little or big your contribution is, your helping to make a better world for the next generations, for the people around the world and for yourself.

Let's stop being selfish and let's care more, that is the key to change.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

1937, World's Highest Standard of Living :: Margaret Bourke-White

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 28, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 29, 2024

On Monday, October 28, 1929, New York’s Metropolitan Opera Company opened its forty-fifth season.

Four thousand attendees in their finest clothes strolled to the elegant building on foot or traveled in one of a thousand limousines to see Puccini’s Manon Lescaut, the melodramatic story of an innocent French girl seduced by wealth, whose reluctance to leave her riches for true love leads to her arrest and tragic death. Photographers captured images of the era’s social celebrities as they arrived at opening night, their flash bulbs blinding the crowd that had gathered to see the famous faces and expensive gowns.

No one toasting the beginning of the opera season that night knew they were marking the end of an era.

At ten o’clock the next morning, when the opening gong sounded in the great hall of the New York Stock Exchange, men began to unload their stocks. So fast did trading go that by the end of the day, the ticker recording transactions ran two and a half hours late. When the final tally could be read, it showed that an extraordinary 16,410,030 shares had traded hands, and the market had lost $14 billion. The market had been uneasy for weeks before the twenty-ninth, but Black Tuesday began a slide that seemingly would not end. By mid-November the industrial average was half of what it had been in September. The economic boom that had fueled the Roaring Twenties was over.

Once the bottom fell out of the stock market, the economy ground down. Manufacturing output dropped to levels lower than those of 1913. The production of pig iron fell to what it had been in the 1890s. Foreign trade dropped by $7 billion, down to just $3 billion. The price of wheat fell from $1.05 a bushel to 39 cents; corn dropped from 81 to 33 cents; cotton fell from 17 to 6 cents a pound. Prices dropped so low that selling crops meant taking a loss, so struggling farmers simply let them rot in the fields. 

By 1932, over one million people in New York City were unemployed. By 1933 the number of unemployed across the nation rose to 13 million people—one out of every four American workers. Unable to afford rent or pay mortgages, people lived in shelters made of packing boxes.

No one knew how to combat the Great Depression, but certain wealthy Americans were sure they knew what had caused it. The problem, they said, was that poor Americans refused to work hard enough and were draining the economy. They must be forced to take less. “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate,” Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon told President Herbert Hoover. “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” 

Slash government spending, agreed the Chicago Tribune: lay off teachers and government workers, and demand that those who remain accept lower wages. Richard Whitney, a former president of the Stock Exchange, told the Senate that the only way to restart the economy was to cut government salaries and veterans’ benefits (although he told them that his own salary—which at sixty thousand dollars was six times higher than theirs—was “very little” and couldn’t be reduced).

President Hoover knew little about finances, let alone how to fix an economic crisis of global proportions. He tried to reverse the economic slide by cutting taxes and reassuring Americans that “the fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.” 

But taxes were already so low that most folks would see only a few extra dollars a year from the cuts, and the fundamental business of the country was not, in fact, sound. When suffering Americans begged for public works programs to provide jobs, Hoover insisted that such programs were a “soak the rich” program that would “enslave” taxpayers, and called instead for private charity.

By the time Hoover’s term ended, Americans were ready to try a new approach to economic recovery. They refused to reelect Hoover and turned instead to New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised to use the federal government to provide jobs and a safety net to enable Americans to weather hard times. He promised the American people a “New Deal”: a government that would work for everyone, not just for the wealthy and well connected.

As soon as Roosevelt was in office, Democrats began to pass laws protecting workers’ rights, providing government jobs, regulating business and banking, and beginning to chip away at the racial segregation of the American South. New Deal policies employed more than 8.5 million people, built more than 650,000 miles of highways, built or repaired more than 120,000 bridges, and put up more than 125,000 buildings. 

They regulated banking and the stock market and gave workers the right to bargain collectively. They established minimum wages and maximum hours for work. They provided a basic social safety net and regulated food and drug safety. And when World War II broke out, the new system enabled the United States to defend democracy successfully against fascists both at home—where they had grown strong enough to turn out almost 20,000 people to a rally at Madison Square Garden in 1939—and abroad. 

The New Deal worked so well that common men and women across the country hailed FDR as their leader, electing him an unprecedented four times. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower built on the New Deal when voters elected him in 1952. He bolstered the nation’s infrastructure with the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which provided $25 billion to build 41,000 miles of highway across the country; added the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the government and called for a national healthcare system.

Eisenhower nominated former Republican governor of California Earl Warren as chief justice of the Supreme Court to protect civil rights, which he would begin to do with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision months after joining the court. Eisenhower also insisted on the vital importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to stop the Soviet Union from spreading communism throughout Europe.

Eisenhower called his vision “a middle way between untrammeled freedom of the individual and the demands of the welfare of the whole Nation.” 

The system worked: between 1945 and 1960 the nation’s gross national product (GNP) jumped by 250%, from $200 billion to $500 billion. The vast majority of Americans of both parties liked the new system that had helped the nation to recover from the Depression and to equip the Allies to win World War II. 

Politicians and commentators agreed that most Democrats and Republicans shared a “liberal consensus” that the government should regulate business, provide for basic social welfare, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights. It seemed the country had finally created a government that best reflected democratic values. 

Indeed, that liberal consensus seemed so universal that the only place to find opposition was in entertainment. Popular radio comedian Fred Allen’s show included a caricature, Senator Beauregard Claghorn, a southern blowhard who pontificated, harrumphed, and took his reflexive hatred of the North to ridiculous extremes. A buffoon who represented the past, the Claghorn character was such a success that he starred in his own Hollywood film and later became the basis for the Looney Tunes cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[liberaljane]

Nothing more expensive than being poor.

Digital illustration of the back of a person's jacket. There's a James Baldwin quote that reads, "Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor'

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Noah Berlatsky at Everything Is Horrible:

Post election, progressives have argued that Harris spent too much time talking about fracking and military preparedness, and not enough talking about pocketbook issues. Centrists have argued that Harris spent too much time talking about trans issues and marginalized people, and not enough talking about pocketbook issues. Both of these narratives have little to do with the campaign we actually saw, in which Harris spoke extensively about lowering housing costs, helping first time home buyers, and fighting for the middle class. Memory holing Harris’ actual economic proposals is frustrating and silly. But it doesn’t seem likely to do long term damage since there’s at least a general agreement that helping working people and the middle class is in fact a good thing. But there is one aspect of the “Harris didn’t talk about economics” consensus that is disturbing. Abortion, in these discussions, tends to be treated as a side issue disconnected from the concerns of working people and from economic well being. And that’s fucked up.

Abortion Is An Economic Issue

I think everyone would agree that Harris made abortion a central issue in the campaign. She mentioned “Trump abortion bans” at every opportunity and regularly blamed Trump (rightly) for the Supreme Court picks that led to the end of Roe and paved the way for draconian state restrictions. Democrats hoped that state abortion rights ballot measures would boost Harris in states like Arizona and Florida—and though they didn’t win her the election, many of the measures themselves passed, even in very red states like Missouri. Abortion tends to get bracketed as an “identity politics” issue, or as a culture war issue. But part of the reason Dobbs is so unpopular is because, among its other horrors, loss of access to reproductive care is economically devastating.

[...]

Whose pocketbooks are we talking about?

Harris’ campaign focused more on the health dangers of abortion restrictions, especially on two heartbreaking cases in Georgia where the state’s abortion ban prevented two women from receiving care, leading to their deaths. The longterm damage to women’s economic standing and career options were less of a focus, in part no doubt because these consequences are seen as less sympathetic. Many conservatives believe that pregnant women should be willing, and if not willing, forced, to prioritize a blob of fetal tissue over their careers. Democrats and progressives, though, should in theory be better than that. We should know that abortion rights are a pocketbook issue for anyone who can get pregnant, and for their partners, parents, and children. When assessing Harris’ campaign, we should be acknowledging that abortion rights are crucial for economic wellbeing. To say that Harris didn’t campaign on pocketbook issues is to say that abortion is not a pocketbook issue. Which it is.

[...]

You can’t have economic progress without rights

Democrats can be timid about connecting economic wellbeing with social justice and civil rights, because they worry that any mention of non white male identity will lead to powerful white male backlash. Again, this is why Harris probably played down the economic effects of abortion in her messaging. In the second, wretched Trump era, though, it’s going to become painfully clear that when you’re denied equal rights, you’re also denied economic opportunity. You can work hard, but that’s not going to matter much if Trump revokes your legal immigration status or deports your spouse. You can go to school and get a degree to teach, but that won’t help you if LGBT people and Black people are purged from secondary and post secondary education. And, once more, if reproductive care—maybe including birth control—is banned, the financial fate of women and pregnant people becomes extremely precarious.

This piece from Noah Berlatsky on why abortion is an economic justice issue is spot on.

[friday-911]

There once was a man named Robert Reich, Fighting for workers with all his might. He's here to instruct us, On economic injustice, We need facts in our fight with the right!

-=<+>=-

This is the best explanation of the main reason why Trump won the election that I've seen. And as a former Secretary of Labor who repudiated "trickle down economics" he knows this shit.

Go to the OP linked below for a copy & paste version.

RISE - RESIST - REPEAT

[omegaphilosophia]

Balancing Wealth in Society: The Case for a Floor for the Poor and a Ceiling for the Rich

The idea that society should provide a "floor" for the poor and a "ceiling" for the rich stems from concerns around fairness, opportunity, and social stability. Here’s an outline of the reasoning:

1. Ensuring Basic Human Dignity and Opportunity for All (The Floor)

Basic Needs and Security: Establishing a minimum standard of living (e.g., housing, healthcare, education) ensures that everyone can live with dignity. It aims to prevent poverty from being a barrier to personal development and societal contribution.

Equal Opportunity: A social "floor" supports the idea that everyone should have a fair shot at success, regardless of birth circumstances. If people can access education, healthcare, and stable living conditions, they are better positioned to participate in society and the economy.

Economic Productivity: A healthier, better-educated population can contribute more effectively to the economy. Reducing extreme poverty is not only a moral issue but also an investment in human capital that benefits society as a whole.

2. Preventing Excessive Wealth Concentration (The Ceiling)

Power Imbalance and Democracy: When wealth accumulates excessively at the top, it often leads to disproportionate influence in politics, the economy, and media. A "ceiling" helps limit the risk of oligarchy, where a small elite may control policies in ways that benefit themselves over the broader population.

Resource Distribution and Social Cohesion: Concentrated wealth often translates into concentrated resources, such as land, labor, and technology, which can create economic inefficiencies and inequality. A ceiling helps redistribute resources to create a more balanced society, reducing tensions and potential social unrest.

Encouraging Social Responsibility: When wealth accumulation has an upper limit, it encourages the wealthy to focus on the broader impact of their success. This can promote reinvestment into society, philanthropy, and sustainable business practices rather than endless personal wealth expansion.

3. Reducing Economic Inefficiencies and Promoting Innovation

Promoting Circulation of Wealth: Wealth ceilings can lead to increased investment in public goods, infrastructure, and innovation. When excess wealth is capped, more resources may go into sectors that support public benefit rather than just individual enrichment.

Incentivizing Innovation Over Rent-Seeking: With a wealth ceiling, economic success would ideally shift focus from mere wealth accumulation to creative, impactful, and innovative contributions. This encourages businesses and individuals to prioritize improvements that benefit broader society.

A "floor" and "ceiling" model aims to strike a balance between ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed and preventing the negative consequences of excessive wealth concentration. In this framework, everyone is better positioned to contribute meaningfully to society, fostering a more equitable, stable, and dynamic community.