But I am not talking about confiscatory taxation when I say that the middle class exists at the expense of the upper class. I am talking about a social system that makes sure that the gains from productivity (increases) are distributed in an equitable fashion. The difference, in other words, between Roosevelt capitalism and Reagan Capitalism. My apologies for being unclear.
If, however, you would argue that equitable sharing of the gains of productivity increases does not happen at the cost of the upper class, then I would ask why the current crop of upper class seems to disagree with you about that?
The Danish welfare model has been described with some accuracy as "the richest 90 % paying to the poorest 90 %." I should think that the achievements of the Scandinavian social system are rather more than merely symbolic.
Germany is weird w.r.t. environmental policy. Or maybe I'm just being anglophile here (in terms of what defines the political spectrum, Denmark is a surprisingly anglophile country, I think). But my hat is off to the German conservatives. Some of them are a bit too cosy with the Papacy for my taste, but I'll take someone brownnosing the Pope to someone brownnosing Washington any day on the week and twice on Sundays.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I think it's less weird - I definitely think that Kohl's CDU jumped on the environmentalism bandwagon out of fear of votes (one shouldn't discuss this without forgetting the sometimes violent mass protests), and did so without real conviction. Some of it was motivated by the opportunity hopes of the firendly high-tech industry.
I note though towards Martin that
The suit is bad enough, smacking of those social-democratic leisure suits from the 1980's. But with those shoes, man!
I wonder how he takes himself seriously when he arrives to work... Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
No. I simply know how to dress.
If you're going to wear a business suit of any kind, don't wear Nike. Alternately, if you are going to wear a swim suit, dress shoes look equally silly.
I'm sure he thought he was making a point by wearing his sweat-shop made tennis shoes with his thoroughly social-democratic "business" suit, but I'm equally sure it was lost on everyone but his (limited circle of) supporters. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
When you have a properly equal society, everyone knows how to dress properly. A very wealthy American friend of mine who knows France well, travels to Paris a lot, once remarked of his frustration at the fact it was impossible for him to tell, based on how a Parisienne dressed, a sales woman from La Redoute from a properly bourgeoise woman from Neuilly.
Obviously he exagerrates a bit, but the underlying point was true, and this to me is a good thing. Everyone should have access to the same expression of common aesthetic sensibilities. Not just those who have far too much money and subsequently create their markers, to which you allude (and incidentally create counter markers in the underclass, as a reaction).
Not to say everyone should conform to a proper dress code, but there's a difference, you know, between differentiation of modes of dress informed by great inequality (against which we should always be striving) and those informed by simple attention-seeking. Note take that there will always be somewhat less than serious people who will wear school-boy knickers with their business suits or something similar, so as to make a certain impression, often bourne of an over-excessive consciousness of self.
Anyhow, since the object of my comment is a German Green, I rather doubt the sneakers were a statement of class consciousness. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
