I thought yesterday's diary might be my last, at least on this version of Daily Kos, if not the new one, but I saw this quote by Senator Feingold on Think Progress from an interview of former Senator Feingold by The Nation’s John Nichols and wanted to share it here.
FEINGOLD: I don’t know how it could be more stark or clear: this entire society is being dominated by corporate power in a way that may exceed what happened in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. The incredible power these institutions now have over the average person is just overwhelming: the way they can make these trade deals to ship people’s jobs overseas, the way consumers are just brutalized and consumer protection laws are marginalized, the way this town here—Washington—has become a corporate playground.
More, after the fold.
More from Russ Feingold:
Since I’ve been here, this place has gone from a government town to a giant corporate headquarters. To me, the whole face of the country—whether it be the government, the media, agriculture, what happens on Main Street—has become so corporatized that the progressive movement is as relevant as it was one hundred years ago, maybe more so. It’s the same issues. It’s just that [corporate] power, because of money, international arrangements and communications, is so overwhelming that the average person is nearly helpless unless we develop a movement that can counter that power. I know we’ve all tried over the years, but this is a critical moment. We need to regenerate progressivism and make it relevant to what’s happening right now. But there’s no lack of historical comparison to a hundred years ago. It’s so similar; the only real difference is that corporate power is even more extended. It’s the Gilded Age on steroids.
Interview of former Senator Feingold by The Nation’s John Nichols
Think Progress correctly points out that the economc inequality today is roughly the same as the 1920s.
Feingold is not exaggerating in his comparisons between modern day America and the Gilded Age. The top 0.1 percent of income earners in America were in 2008 earning 8 percent of the country’s total income, "the same share as during the Gilded Era of the 1920s." A University of California-Berkeley study released in 2009 found that income inequality in 2007 was the highest it had ever been in recorded history, with the "the top 1 percent incomes [capturing] half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007."
As of last year, income inequality in the United States reached its worst extent since records started being kept. More data:
The top-earning 20 percent of Americans -- those making more than $100,000 each year -- received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures ... A different measure, the international Gini index, found U.S. income inequality at its highest level since the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967. The U.S. also has the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations.
At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, census data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.
Sept. 2010, Slate, The United States of income inequality
More:
The best data series I could find is for Argentina. In the 1940s, the top 1 percent there controlled more than 20 percent of incomes. That was roughly double the share at that time in the United States.
Since then, we’ve reversed places. The share controlled by the top 1 percent in Argentina has fallen to a bit more than 15 percent. Meanwhile, inequality in the United States has soared to levels comparable to those in Argentina six decades ago — with 1 percent controlling 24 percent of American income in 2007.
snip
But there is also a larger question: What kind of a country do we aspire to be? Would we really want to be the kind of plutocracy where the richest 1 percent possesses more net worth than the bottom 90 percent?
Oops! That’s already us. The top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of America’s private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent.
That also means that the top 10 percent controls more than 70 percent of Americans’ total net worth.
A Hedge Fund Republic?
Yes, the Gilded Age on Steroids. And only a real movement can change that.
Update I: Small historical point. Feingold is speaking of the Gilded Age, which was roughly 1870 to 1900. It created a populist movement and, later, a progressive movement (the two are different, but did have some overlap in seeking reforms), that sought to ameliorate the inequality that existed. The economic data I could find on the net quickly refers back to the 1920s, which was similar in some ways, but was not the Gilded Age. No doubt inequality was even greater betwen 1870 and 1900.
Some facts:
•The Gilded Age lasted from 1870-1900
•The name came from the title of a Mark Twain book
•"Gilded" means covered with gold on the outside, but not really golden on the inside