What a weird article! You ask people their opinions about whether the gap between rich and poor is growing or whether the employment situation is improving without looking at the relevant economic data? I understand that the article is about a poll, but without any context, all we're really being told is that some fraction of people don't know what is going on---that is not news.
About the question of the meaning of the phrase "government action": I think its true meaning for many Americans is "government [already flagged by the g-word as probably negative] action that I don't approve of or that benefits someone else but not me." In other words, it is almost completely contextual and without much meaning.beyond "bad." When the action is approved of, the focus is always on the intended results ("providing equal opportunity," "reducing unfair competition," "promoting innovation," "defending our way of life," etc.), not the mechanism of redistributing the cash. This is the intellectual level of Frankenstein's monster (in the movie version).
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Re: "Still, respondents are almost evenly split on the need for
> government
> > action to narrow the income gap: 45 percent say new policies are needed,
> > while 46 percent say it would be better to allow the market to operate
> > freely even if the gap gets wider."
> >
> > [WS:] Playing a devil's advocate, it could be argued that it is
> government
> > policies that are largely responsible for growing income inequalities
> > through privatization, quasi monopolies, subcontracting etc. This is
> known
> > as crony capitalism - its the best connected mediocrities rather than
> most
> > efficient producers who get most rewarded in this crony capitalist
> system.
> >
> > So it is possible that "government action" can have very different
> meanings
> > to different people. To social democrats (such as myself) it means
> "social
> > welfare and fiscal policies that benefit the middle and working class".
> To
> > others it can mean "policies that benefit the politically connected" aka
> > "crony capitalism."
>
> It's pretty widely accepted, though, particularly on the left, that the
> capitalist state energetically intervenes to support the corporate sector
> and the wealthy. You've argued otherwise, but this is also true of Europe,
> where the Blair and Schroeder governments in the UK and Germany as well as
> various social democratic regimes in France, Italy, Spain, Greece, and
> elsewhere began implementing policies modelled after those in the US
> concerning welfare benefits, privatization, deregulation, and industrial
> relations. The eurozone crisis has provided an opportunity for the
> accelerated rollback of social reforms and worker protections. See for
> example:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/business/economy/the-americanization-of-european-labor-policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>