[Class War in America] Rolling Stone Calls Spade a Spade

[Broomstick]

And on what do you base that? What they pay in YOUR area, 2,000 miles away from where I live? Or did you bother to actually ask about wages, in person, in Griffith and Gary and Highland Indiana as I have been doing?

Various national indexes evaluate this which are easily consulted. You do realize that the argument is a decaf version of anti-intellectualism, right? That those braniancs in their ivory towers don't know what it is like to work in the trenches with all the good god-fearing blue collar men, so they don't know what they are talking about.

Yes, I do think that is the case, at least part of the time.

The official indices can say whatever the fuck they want, but when I go to apply for a job and they say "We're only paying minimum wage" THAT is the reality I have to deal with. Whether the same job pays twice as much somewhere else is irrelevant to my situation at that moment in time.

Are you even aware that for the wait staff in our local restaurants (the sit down kind) it is actually legal to pay them less than minimum wage, under the assumption the difference will be made up in tips? You've already admitted that you can't live on minimum wage, yet we have people who earn even less than that. That is a seriously fucked up system.

Can you demonstrate that the average tip wage results in them still getting less then minimum wage? In my experiences I made more, which validated the practice, but that is only 1 persons anecdotal evidence.

How about this: I think it is wrong to pay people less than minimum wage and rely on you customers to make up the difference. Just because we have a long tradition of tipping in this country does not automatically make it the superior way of doing something.

In addition, who said anything about the population, you moron? We're talking about the labor force, which is not the same thing (it's more like 150 million people), and there are a lot more than 450,000 teens in the labor force.

YOU said, and I quote:

Moreover, less than 5% of Americans currently work for minimum wage

You said "Americans" in general. Not "adults", not "working people", not "non-institutionalized people under 65" or whatever qualification you care to put on it now - I took you at your word. If you don't like that, be more specific in the future.

Yes, how dare he assume you know what you are talking about. Unemployment has a definition based off specific standards. If you are going to talk about unemployment, it is assumed that you know what those standards are. If you do not have the framework to interpret the data, then the data is useless. This is no different from anything else.

Unemployment means "I don't have a paying job."

Underemployment means "I can't find a job that pays enough for my basic needs."

The - you know, I actually DON'T know the official term, not being a professional economist - group of people who want to work/should work is a subset of "Americans". Perhaps, instead of assuming we have all studied the dismal science, you SHOULD define terms. You and Ossus, after all, are supposed to be the experts here, not the rest of us.

And, in any case, why is it OK to pay someone shit wages just because they're a teenager? If they're working they should be paid at the same level as anyone else, and someone 18 or 19 years old may need a decent income just as much as an older adult.

So bereft or a logical argument, we get an appeal to emotion. Cool. If you want to discuss the minimum wage, a better idea would be frame your argument around the CPI, cost-push inflation, and other factors that come into play with a change in the minimum wage.

Right, wouldn't want to mix morals and money, would we. No, paying someone shit wages just because they're a teenager is as wrong as paying someone less for being black or female or any other irrelevant, arbitrary characteristic. Paid less based on less experience or skill or some relevant measure, that is justifiable, but the bullshit I see where they high teens to do work like picking up trash in parks because adults are "too expensive" is wrong. Just like it wrong to hire illegals who are willing to work for less than minimum wage - whether they're willing or not, it's still wrong.

If you are done, would you actually like to address the point that there is a distinct difference between being unemployed and low wages?

How about we start with the concept that a "bonus" is supposed to be in addition to what you otherwise earn and should not be considered part of the salary you are entitled to by having the job in question? Losing a bonus is different than getting, say a 30-50% cut in your base salary, or your hours cut in half and your medical insurance dropped. Boo-fucking-hoo, Ossus lost a perk, he might have to cut back on his Starbuck's consumption. There is a massive difference between that a paycut.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Recession or non-recession may be overvalued for determining the health of an economy. Personally I'm not a fan of changing the definition, it's probably better to coin use terms like "jobless recovery", "or jobless growth".

Most summers the unemployment rate experiences a spike, but this summer was higher than usual (something like a 20 year record). Dr Krugman, the NY Times Op-Ed economist attributed this to lower than normal job creation numbers. He went on to suggest that recessionary language may be outdated, or not very useful, due to the rarity of recessions. His preferred method of evaluation was that job-growth needed to be roughly = to labor growth or the economy was under-performing/sub-optimal/bad/any other normative word. Some center-left economists have been referring to "jobless economic growth" growth where not very many jobs are added. It sidesteps the argument of "recession or not?" and deals with the implications of slower than normal growth.

[Darth Wong]

That's a general problem I see in class-related economics discussions. It is often assumed that "economic problems" for poor people are similar to "economic problems" for upper middle class (to say nothing of outright rich) people.

For me, "economic problems" mean that that I can't pay for two kids going to private school, veterinary bills for my dog, and take a nice vacation every year while paying for living expenses and putting money into retirement savings. For others, "economic problems" mean that they can't pay for food or heating or shelter.

The problem comes when people like me feel that our economic problems should have just as much priority as those of the much needier. Even people who are genuinely wealthy have the same attitude, and act as if they are being victimized by paying higher taxes to support the lower class.

I do understand their anger on some level; after all, the stereotype of the lazy welfare bum is more than a stereotype; there are real people who fit it perfectly. But at the same time, it is hard as hell to climb out of poverty and into the middle class, and we have to recognize that.

[Ender]

Yes, I do think that is the case, at least part of the time.

The official indices can say whatever the fuck they want, but when I go to apply for a job and they say "We're only paying minimum wage" THAT is the reality I have to deal with. Whether the same job pays twice as much somewhere else is irrelevant to my situation at that moment in time.

You do realize that the playing field is much larger then just you, right? Does being unable to find a decent job suck balls? Hell yes. I'm in about the same situation you are in - fresh out of a job, in the midwest where no one is hiring. I've been stuck painting and re-siding houses and living off savings to get by until I can get into school. But that isn't true everywhere, or even in most places. Which is what he said, and you went after him for it.

How about this: I think it is wrong to pay people less than minimum wage and rely on you customers to make up the difference. Just because we have a long tradition of tipping in this country does not automatically make it the superior way of doing something.

So in liu of a logical argument against the practice based off the evidence, we are appealing to how you feel about the issue. "Following your gut" is not a valid way to go about things.

Unemployment means "I don't have a paying job."

Underemployment means "I can't find a job that pays enough for my basic needs."

These are not the official definitions of the term, as relevant to discussing unemployment statistics and . Your attempt to discuss it when you don't know the basics is like trying to talk physics when you don't know what a vector is.

The - you know, I actually DON'T know the official term, not being a professional economist - group of people who want to work/should work is a subset of "Americans". Perhaps, instead of assuming we have all studied the dismal science, you SHOULD define terms. You and Ossus, after all, are supposed to be the experts here, not the rest of us.

And yet you bitched about the fact he does insert qualifiers to define them. If you want to discuss economic issues, you should really have at least a basic framework. I found this a useful reference during my courses:
http://www.investopedia.com/?viewed=1

while it is geared towards "How to invest" it also provides a good encyclopedia of terms for things. The bulk of the editors are investors and economists, so it is a good general guide to the basics. For example, a search for unemployment breaks down into the various factors related to it.

Right, wouldn't want to mix morals and money, would we. No, paying someone shit wages just because they're a teenager is as wrong as paying someone less for being black or female or any other irrelevant, arbitrary characteristic. Paid less based on less experience or skill or some relevant measure, that is justifiable, but the bullshit I see where they high teens to do work like picking up trash in parks because adults are "too expensive" is wrong. Just like it wrong to hire illegals who are willing to work for less than minimum wage - whether they're willing or not, it's still wrong.

Cut the crap and present a logical argument with supporting proof like the board rules require you to do. Setting the minimum wage is a balancing act between various real and opportunity costs that ripple across society in various ways. It is not a simple topic, so quite treating it like one.

How about we start with the concept that a "bonus" is supposed to be in addition to what you otherwise earn and should not be considered part of the salary you are entitled to by having the job in question? Losing a bonus is different than getting, say a 30-50% cut in your base salary, or your hours cut in half and your medical insurance dropped. Boo-fucking-hoo, Ossus lost a perk, he might have to cut back on his Starbuck's consumption. There is a massive difference between that a paycut.

So no, you'd rather throw a hissy fit then actually discuss the topic of unemployment vs low wages.

[Darth Wong]

I think the more salient point is that different people mean different things by "low wages". Let's suppose I get a $20k bonus one year, and no bonus the next. To me, this would be a major drop in my income and represent "low wages". But my wage is still far above what I need to survive. For another person, a drop in his wage might mean that he can't feed his family, at which point he might as well be completely unemployed, because you start having situations where people are working, yet their living standard is no better than that of a welfare recipient.

[Ender]

Economics has the problem that though it is a science, it is both a soft science and a relatively new one. We've been examining chemistry since the first ape-man got the idea to try eating a plant when his stomach hurt, but economics only really started to spring up in the late 19th century. And just like any other science, it has a number of pseudo scientists involved who will throw out utter bullshit. The stuff we are seeing now, tying economics almost exclusively to making the rich get richer and always turning a profit for a business is similar to how a hundred years ago some hacks took the theory of evolution to generate social darwinism and preach eugenics. But since it is a soft science, it is much harder to refute these guys because we can't perform simple experiments to peer review them.

I wonder if you could set up an MMORPG to test economic theories. I know the CDC used a bug in World of Warcraft to model how people would react to a pandemic.

[Illuminatus Primus]

OK, I've been puzzling over this one a couple days.

A tax bill is a one-year affair - you pay it, and it's done, end of that particular obligation.

Debt lasts - a mortgage is a 20 year commitment, as just an example

Seems to me you're choosing between an ass-raping by the IRS vs. an ass-raping by the bank. If you're paying out money either way, whether you want to or not, why don't you just pay the damn taxes and be done with it, rather than assuming debt you don't want?

Uh, debt can finance your investments in yourself and future, so can return personal net gains in a way within a reasonable standard of control. Taxes do not.

[Ender]

OK, I've been puzzling over this one a couple days.

A tax bill is a one-year affair - you pay it, and it's done, end of that particular obligation.

Debt lasts - a mortgage is a 20 year commitment, as just an example

Seems to me you're choosing between an ass-raping by the IRS vs. an ass-raping by the bank. If you're paying out money either way, whether you want to or not, why don't you just pay the damn taxes and be done with it, rather than assuming debt you don't want?

Uh, debt can finance your investments in yourself and future, so can return personal net gains in a way within a reasonable standard of control. Taxes do not.

To expand with an example, you can take on a debt burden with say a student loan. That money allows you to invest in yourself via education, which gives you a net gain in earning capacity later. Other examples would be small business loans letting you start your own company and see larger returns later. Debt can be used to better your standing. Taxes are just a solid chunk off.

[Darmalus]

I wonder if you could set up an MMORPG to test economic theories. I know the CDC used a bug in World of Warcraft to model how people would react to a pandemic.

Wait, what?! This I gotta hear! Maybe in another thread, however.

[Darth Wong]

Uh, debt can finance your investments in yourself and future, so can return personal net gains in a way within a reasonable standard of control. Taxes do not.

Taxes can potentially pay for social program spending and infrastructure investment which might make your life a hell of a lot easier in future. That can have just as much of a net positive effect as a personal investment.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Speaking of the wage gap, it has been steadily widening for 30 years, right through periods when virtually all the economists seemed to agree that the economy was in great shape. That's another example of what I'm talking about.

You keep acting as if it is expected for economists to preach on the basis of research and their intellectual authority on the social system. Some people - economists included - are not bothered by social inequity as much as you are (you I think would qualify broadly as a social democrat). Now there's an ethical argument to be made about that, but its a value judgment and outside the competency of "how will raising say - taxes - affect the other numbers over here." I find it hard to see how it could be reasonably enforced without decree from on-high.

In engineering, first of all the fundamental subject matter is intrinsically more scientifically rigorous and deterministic; secondly, the profession is well-organized and established; third, the ethical issues are much simply and less debatable - they're more easily delineated. If someone has an unqualified person or someone who is not licensed to practice engineering, they are in violation of the law. If an engineer knowingly makes a bridge that is more likely to fail - and therefore kill or harm people - he is in violation. How would we extend this to economists? Create professional organizations and mandate that they incorporate the ethics of wealth redistribution into their standards? Should economists who advise CEOs who lay off workers be guilty of violation of ethics because their advice resulted in harm to people's livelihoods? If they advise deregulation and then it arguably causes greater failures and losses, should they been stripped of license?

It doesn't help that there is no standard of conduct. Illuminatus Primus earlier asked if I was suggesting that economists should be regulated like engineers. I would have to say "yes". They have a significant impact on national policy, and yet they are pretty much free of any licensing requirements or the possibility of a disciplinary hearing, unlike doctors and lawyers and engineers. Any ideologue "think tank" can hire highly qualified economists to spout whatever bullshit they want, and there is no penalty for anyone.

See above. I don't see how you could get what you want without holding companies and organizations legally culpable for hiring or consulting economists without licensing, and forcibly incorporating social democratic ethical principles into their standards.

[Keevan_Colton]

I wonder if you could set up an MMORPG to test economic theories. I know the CDC used a bug in World of Warcraft to model how people would react to a pandemic.

Check out EVE Online, the Financial Times ran a piece on it for just that reason.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Uh, debt can finance your investments in yourself and future, so can return personal net gains in a way within a reasonable standard of control. Taxes do not.

Taxes can potentially pay for social program spending and infrastructure investment which might make your life a hell of a lot easier in future. That can have just as much of a net positive effect as a personal investment.

You can control the intelligence of your own investment decisions. Your decisions and points of view - no matter their realism and educated nature - are lumped in with anyone who was born in your nation and breathes air. I don't blame people for feeling like they could take care of themselves better with their money than by having it taxed away (admittedly to some degree due to the half-ass way the U.S. implements social programs; a properly operated social health care system would be worth the opportunity cost and then some of me paying for insurance and saving for potential medical emergencies). In the U.S., your federal taxes subsidized a wasteful and adventurous extension of U.S. military capability and subsidized the creation of the outsource service economy of the unsustainable suburbs for over twenty years.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's a general problem I see in class-related economics discussions. It is often assumed that "economic problems" for poor people are similar to "economic problems" for upper middle class (to say nothing of outright rich) people.

For me, "economic problems" mean that that I can't pay for two kids going to private school, veterinary bills for my dog, and take a nice vacation every year while paying for living expenses and putting money into retirement savings. For others, "economic problems" mean that they can't pay for food or heating or shelter.

The problem comes when people like me feel that our economic problems should have just as much priority as those of the much needier. Even people who are genuinely wealthy have the same attitude, and act as if they are being victimized by paying higher taxes to support the lower class.

I do understand their anger on some level; after all, the stereotype of the lazy welfare bum is more than a stereotype; there are real people who fit it perfectly. But at the same time, it is hard as hell to climb out of poverty and into the middle class, and we have to recognize that.

I agree with all you're saying, but they are value judgments and essentially political-ideological in nature. They don't follow objectively from a study of the economy. The only way to enforce such ethics would be to codify them in economists' ethical guidelines and hold them legally culpable.

[Ender]

I wonder if you could set up an MMORPG to test economic theories. I know the CDC used a bug in World of Warcraft to model how people would react to a pandemic.

Wait, what?! This I gotta hear! Maybe in another thread, however.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Corrupted_Blood

See the links at the bottom to news stories about how the progress of the bug was tracked to get data about how people would react IRL.

[Darth Wong]

You keep acting as if it is expected for economists to preach on the basis of research and their intellectual authority on the social system. Some people - economists included - are not bothered by social inequity as much as you are (you I think would qualify broadly as a social democrat). Now there's an ethical argument to be made about that, but its a value judgment and outside the competency of "how will raising say - taxes - affect the other numbers over here." I find it hard to see how it could be reasonably enforced without decree from on-high.

Of course it would require decree from on high. The same was true of engineering, law, medicine, etc. And why shouldn't economics incorporate social benefit? Isn't that the whole fucking purpose of economics in the first place? It's like saying that medicine is just medicine, and shouldn't have any kind of ethics incorporated into it.

In engineering, first of all the fundamental subject matter is intrinsically more scientifically rigorous and deterministic; secondly, the profession is well-organized and established; third, the ethical issues are much simply and less debatable - they're more easily delineated. If someone has an unqualified person or someone who is not licensed to practice engineering, they are in violation of the law. If an engineer knowingly makes a bridge that is more likely to fail - and therefore kill or harm people - he is in violation. How would we extend this to economists? Create professional organizations and mandate that they incorporate the ethics of wealth redistribution into their standards? Should economists who advise CEOs who lay off workers be guilty of violation of ethics because their advice resulted in harm to people's livelihoods? If they advise deregulation and then it arguably causes greater failures and losses, should they been stripped of license?

You are aware that engineering ethics also cover statements of information, right? If you are aware of undocumented actions on the part of your employer that may pose a risk to the public, you are obligated to report them. If you know that your employer is making fraudulent statements about the safety of a product or failing to report serious risks, even if you were not personally involved in the design or manufacture of that product, you are obligated to report it. If you make expert statements in your capacity as a professional engineer, you are required to apply all necessary academic rigour to them.

Can you see how some of that might apply to economics?

See above. I don't see how you could get what you want without holding companies and organizations legally culpable for hiring or consulting economists without licensing, and forcibly incorporating social democratic ethical principles into their standards.

And why would that be a bad thing?

[Keevan_Colton]

IP, something worth considering is that such regulation already exists to a certain extent in the arena of the stock market. Just take a look at the concept of insider trading...I find it rather amusing, the rules are that if you know you're going to win, you aren't allowed to play.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You are aware that engineering ethics also cover statements of information, right? If you are aware of undocumented actions on the part of your employer that may pose a risk to the public, you are obligated to report them. If you know that your employer is making fraudulent statements about the safety of a product or failing to report serious risks, even if you were not personally involved in the design or manufacture of that product, you are obligated to report it. If you make expert statements in your capacity as a professional engineer, you are required to apply all necessary academic rigour to them.

Can you see how some of that might apply to economics?

Of course, the problem is the standards are much easier to enforce because engineering is based on rigorous, deterministic physical principles. Not conventional and statistical sampling methods and various other soft stuff. Stuff that is useful, but nowhere near as narrowed down to "the Truth" as engineering principles and conventions.

Furthermore, it is not taken for granted that acting contrary to social democratic principles is actually wrong. Maybe it should, but it isn't. What you're talking about is a much more radical philosophical and political redefining of society and the role of government.

See above. I don't see how you could get what you want without holding companies and organizations legally culpable for hiring or consulting economists without licensing, and forcibly incorporating social democratic ethical principles into their standards.

And why would that be a bad thing?

Its not, but in the U.S. and in most countries, social democratic ethics are not indisputable dogma in the same fashion as "engineers shouldn't build bridges that fall apart and kill people" or "engineers need to inform the public about defective products". How do you determine the public harm and good caused by a particular item of economic advice as definitively as a defective physical product?

In the short term, the big thing is that the old media bias and equal-time laws need to be reinstated, and intellectual dishonesty and libel laws should be much more eagerly punished.

[Illuminatus Primus]

IP, something worth considering is that such regulation already exists to a certain extent in the arena of the stock market. Just take a look at the concept of insider trading...I find it rather amusing, the rules are that if you know you're going to win, you aren't allowed to play.

They're hardly comparable. One is about the unfair use of privileged information to make advantageous decisions on the market. The other is about rigorously defining what is harmful and what isn't in a soft science with a lot more nebulous territory between its myriad hypotheses and "the Truth" compared to engineering conventions and physical realities.

[Keevan_Colton]

IP, something worth considering is that such regulation already exists to a certain extent in the arena of the stock market. Just take a look at the concept of insider trading...I find it rather amusing, the rules are that if you know you're going to win, you aren't allowed to play.

They're hardly comparable. One is about the unfair use of privileged information to make advantageous decisions on the market. The other is about rigorously defining what is harmful and what isn't in a soft science with a lot more nebulous territory between its myriad hypotheses and "the Truth" compared to engineering conventions and physical realities.

I fail to see a particularly large difference, since in both cases it is using information to manipulate a large economic system for gain. It is rather the inverse of the notion since it is looking at personal gain rather than widespread harm, but it does hold since the notion is meant to be there to prevent harm to others taking part in the system.

How exactly is it different to consider someone culpable for manipulating the system to different ends?

I agree that there would need to be a codified system of ethics for it, but all professional bodies have those at their core. Doctors and Engineers for example both hold to causing no harm first...everything else comes a distant second. Would you excuse doctors performing vivisection on random people simply because they didnt know how they were put together yet?

There's a reason that a lot of science doesnt get done that could advance the social sciences, and that's because to do so would be flat out immoral to anyone with a shred of ethics of damn near any sort. (For example isolation experiments involving children...)

[Darth Wong]

Of course, the problem is the standards are much easier to enforce because engineering is based on rigorous, deterministic physical principles. Not conventional and statistical sampling methods and various other soft stuff. Stuff that is useful, but nowhere near as narrowed down to "the Truth" as engineering principles and conventions.

That may be, but even when the majority are convinced that an idea has been falsified, it is still perfectly acceptable for highly qualified economists to run around saying it. Ideology is a perfectly acceptable substitute for study.

Furthermore, it is not taken for granted that acting contrary to social democratic principles is actually wrong. Maybe it should, but it isn't. What you're talking about is a much more radical philosophical and political redefining of society and the role of government.

It's taken for granted in medicine and engineering. Why would it be such a "radical philosophical and political redefining of society and the role of government" to do that in economics too?

Its not, but in the U.S. and in most countries, social democratic ethics are not indisputable dogma in the same fashion as "engineers shouldn't build bridges that fall apart and kill people" or "engineers need to inform the public about defective products". How do you determine the public harm and good caused by a particular item of economic advice as definitively as a defective physical product?

Utilitarianism lies at the core of engineering ethics, and it would determine that harm to huge numbers of lower-class people does, indeed, outweigh harm to smaller numbers of rich people. You act as if this is some kind of nebulous thing which is impossible to define or which no one has ever dared incorporate into a professional code of ethics before, and that's just not true.

In the short term, the big thing is that the old media bias and equal-time laws need to be reinstated, and intellectual dishonesty and libel laws should be much more eagerly punished.

That would certainly help. But in the information age, the clout of economist talking heads has been vastly increased, and I think they need to be held to account for that. As Spiderman says, with great power comes great responsibility.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That may be, but even when the majority are convinced that an idea has been falsified, it is still perfectly acceptable for highly qualified economists to run around saying it. Ideology is a perfectly acceptable substitute for study.

I could respond more easily if you gave an example. And I can point to some examples in science, like some still-published AIDS denialists with Ph.D.s. What should constitute consensus?

It's taken for granted in medicine and engineering. Why would it be such a "radical philosophical and political redefining of society and the role of government" to do that in economics too?

Because social democracy is considered a partisan political ideology, not a fundamental plank of ethics. Furthermore, social democratic ethics are not considered consensus in the U.S. in general and economics probably as well.

Utilitarianism lies at the core of engineering ethics, and it would determine that harm to huge numbers of lower-class people does, indeed, outweigh harm to smaller numbers of rich people. You act as if this is some kind of nebulous thing which is impossible to define or which no one has ever dared incorporate into a professional code of ethics before, and that's just not true.

Except the outright harm has been very general and gradual. How can you pin the decline of the American middle class on (a) specific economist(s)? Its easy to value determine basic decisions made by engineers in the designing process. How can you hold economists to a similar standard? Often they publish a study or write a book and then some politician uses it as a defense or basis for their own plans. In some cases clearly there are economists involved or aware of fraud (see recent banking practices). This obviously is contrary to reasonable standards of ethics and ought to be enforced. But I don't see how it could have prevented Bush's economic policies.

That would certainly help. But in the information age, the clout of economist talking heads has been vastly increased, and I think they need to be held to account for that. As Spiderman says, with great power comes great responsibility.

As already stated, the vast majority of financial talking heads on CNN are not professional economists.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh don't worry Broomstick, I mean your family in the Great Depression and in the Russian pogroms toughed it out. All you need is a stiff upper lip.

[Darth Wong]

That may be, but even when the majority are convinced that an idea has been falsified, it is still perfectly acceptable for highly qualified economists to run around saying it. Ideology is a perfectly acceptable substitute for study.

I could respond more easily if you gave an example.

The benefits of deregulation and supply-side economics. Even if they don't come out and state it, most of the assumptions of supply-side economists are still widely quoted, and implemented. Same goes with the deregulation mania.

And I can point to some examples in science, like some still-published AIDS denialists with Ph.D.s. What should constitute consensus?

Doctors who attempt to actually practice AIDS denialism would lose their licenses and be liable for criminal and civil penalties.

Because social democracy is considered a partisan political ideology ...

Only in the US. Your country is quite frankly a social disease. In most countries, it is taken for granted that we are all supposed to contribute to society, rather than regarding society as a parasite upon our individuality.

Except the outright harm has been very general and gradual.

What about the definition of "harm" do you consider to be exclusive of "gradual"?

How can you pin the decline of the American middle class on (a) specific economist(s)? Its easy to value determine basic decisions made by engineers in the designing process. How can you hold economists to a similar standard?

We're living in the middle of a working example right now: the subprime crisis, which was brought on in large part by the deregulation movement, which was in turn bolstered by support from prominent economists. And what about the "top dog" economists, like the ones running the Fed? Wouldn't it send a pretty striking public message if economists had licenses and the guy running the Fed lost his license for professional incompetence?

As already stated, the vast majority of financial talking heads on CNN are not professional economists.

Well, that's the other problem: without a licensing scheme, it doesn't really matter what your qualifications are. Once you have a licensing scheme, the people who are licensed can point to the people who aren't licensed and say "You don't even have a license!" The word "unlicensed" is a pretty harsh blow to credibility, but it cannot be used when no licensing scheme exists in the first place.

[Broomstick]

Oh don't worry Broomstick, I mean your family in the Great Depression and in the Russian pogroms toughed it out. All you need is a stiff upper lip.

Actually, I do take comfort in the notion that I am a product of survivors of hard times. I might adopt the strategy of my grandparents during the Great Depression - Dad's family were morticians (in the old country they were gravediggers, but in America they got a fancy new title) and hey, people are always dying and needing to be buried/cremated/whatever. In fact, when times are hard, business gets better.

(Mom has never let dad forget the date he canceled because he had to stay home and help embalm somebody)