Home > Political Economy > Question of the week: Is the USA becoming more and more “South American”?

Question of the week: Is the USA becoming more and more “South American”?

from Merijn Knibbe

Am I right that the USA is becoming more and more ‘South-American’, with very high income inequality, poor public services for the poor and excellent medical and educational services for the rich, lots of poorly paid manual and domestic workers and nanny’s, racial tensions and corrupt politics?

Comment from Peter Radford

My guess, is that the huge rise in inequality has shifted the way in which rising employment translates into rising demand. With the current distribution of incomes, the level of employment necessary to get sustainable strong growth may well be beyond our reach. The entire potential has shifted downwards because of the skewed way in which profits have taken a steadily increasing portion of productivity growth. Sooner or later this imbalance has to show up the way you describe. Now may well be the time. What is surprising, perhaps, is how supine the workforce has been throughout the entire shift.

As for your general observations about the US. I moved here from the UK in 1977. Since then I have witnessed an almost willful attempt to allow the nation’s basic services and infrastructure to deteriorate. It is difficult to convey the enormous gulf that now separates the life experience of the wealthy and that of the poor. Worse still is the indifference that pervades to the problems. The crucial longer term issue is the erosion of the vaunted American middle class lifestyle: rising educational and health care costs, coupled with stagnant wages have slowed, if not eliminated, the progression through the famous “American Dream”. Social mobility here is more rigid than in Europe for those born here, so the “dream” really exists only for immigrants. There seems to be no doubt that my children face a much more difficult future than I did. While that may be common throughout the industrial world, the impact it has here, where social flexibility is a major feature of the nation’s psyche, is proportionately greater. This is one factor underlying the more extreme nature of our politics: the dissatisfaction is palpable, yet hard to remedy since we have executed a very free market, pro-capitalist, set of policies that resonates with the core of America. To fix things we need to alter that core. I doubt that will change quickly, if at all. So we have arrived at a dead end and need new ideas. But the political system is unresponsive, corrupt, and diffuses power. That leaves the potential for special interest groups to have enormous power and hold up reform.

That sounds very “South American”. But we shouldn’t over play it. The entire industrial world is having to rethink the socioeconomic arrangements created after World War II, so America is not alone.

  1. Ken Zimmerman
    February 2, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Peter, you say “The entire industrial world is having to rethink the socioeconomic arrangements created after World War II…” My question is why? Have those arrangements failed? Have they created more problems or more severe problems than they solved? Have they hindered governments or governing? Have they been the source of oppression or racial/class/gender discrimination? Have they hindered our economies or the growth and fair distribution of wealth? If none of these is the case, why do they need to be replaced?

  2. Keith Wilde
    February 2, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Peter’s word is “rethink”, not “replace”. That could mean re-affirming the former arrangements following several decades of erosion at the hands of their enemies.

  3. Stan Druben
    February 2, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    These articles speak to the question:

    — Harold Meyerson’s “Business is Booming” ( http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=business_is_booming )

    — William Grieder’s “The End of New Deal Liberalism” ( http://www.thenation.com/article/157511/end-new-deal-liberalism )

  4. Ken Zimmerman
    February 3, 2011 at 12:28 am

    Keith,precisely on target. Now how do we get to this end result?

    • Peter Radford
      February 3, 2011 at 7:06 pm

      Ken: In my mind, the reason the rethink is now taking place, basically, is twofold, the relentless shift rightward in politics, now coupled with the opening afforded to enemies of the postwar arrangement by the rise in debt. Their populist mantra is that it is no longer affordable. This is not just an American issue, but seems to be common across much of the West. So my point is this: whether we want to or not, that arrangement is now on the table. Those of us who want to maintain it need to be vigilant and creative in its defense. We need to point to the constant high approval by voters of the safety net features of the program, and to the destructive consequences of the loss of those features eliminated during the past thirty years.

      Above all we need to understand what caused the rightward drift that has enabled the rethink to take place. Was it complacency? Inefficiency in government? Failure of some programs? Cost? Etc. Perhaps you can shed light on that.

      Whatever the reason, we are here. Now is our chance to re-affirm – to use Keith’s word – the structure of the postwar arrangement. Renew it, and hand it on to the future.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.