I think Kevin Phillips made this observation in *Wealth and Democracy in America*. His point, that Americans temperamentally believe in making money, and dont mind that other people are making more, except now and then, as in the 1890's, when money-making seems to get out of hand. Then they allow the Dems to come in and make some reforms. I was surprised at how few reform eras, as opposed to wealth-building ones, there have been in American history.
Bob
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Carl Remick wrote:
>
> > Looking back on the Clinton years all I see is
> speculation and
> > overinvestmet that created temporary mass wealth
> and employment that
> > has now dissipated. I see no reason to celebrate
> a binge that is
> > certain to be followed by a purge. Capitalism has
> no word for
> > "sustainability."
>
> Yeah, except it's managed to grow enormously over
> several centuries,
> hasn't it?
>
> The second half of the 1990s were the only period in
> the last 30
> years in which real wages rose across the entire
> income distribution.
> The black poverty rate fell sharply to a record low.
> These good
> things were obviously the byproduct of a bubble, but
> they were real,
> and people have good memories of them. The Bush
> years have been very
> crappy for the working class - as was the first Bush
> admin.
>
> You could say - I might, though I'm not sure of this
> yet - is that
> the two parties serve as a kind of balancing act for
> capital. When
> things get too boomy, it's time for the Reps to come
> in and tighten
> the masses' belts. When the population gets restive
> after the round
> of austerity, it's time for a Dem to come in and
> throw the masses a
> few bones. We're on the verge of a bone-throwing
> phase, I guess.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>