In the U.S.,  people get very uncomfortable discussing social class.  Any discussions of social class locality (“I’m in a lower social class than Mike Huckabee)  is on the good graces blacklist as a thoughtcrime.  One of the reasons it’s a thoughtcrime is because some of the circle of people that inform our political leaders use it as a weapon to increase income and political inequality.

If the unwashed masses are discouraged from discussing social class relativity/locality then the economic leaders have more freedom to create greater social and economic divisions.  There’s a perverse logic at work that somehow makes a few very rich, a tiny unstable middle class, and the vast majority with the least resources a Good Thing.  The longer discussions of social class are kept out of the scrum of daily life, the more time there is for increasing political and social inequality.

In America 2010, everyone is Middle Class.  Howard Stringer, Jamie Dimon, Frank Atlee, they are all Middle Class.  Only they are more Middle Class (and right) than the rest of the primitive populists.  The actions of these Middle Class Warriors  since the 1980’s has resulted in increased political and economic inequality.  Some obvious artifacts of this is the declining distribution of wealth.  Another artifact is the stagnant wage growth for the bottom 90%.

Another example, in this post.  Towards the end of the piece on banking regulation, the author labels the ideological assault as Serfdom circa 2010. What’s nice about the article is that someone else at least recognizes that income inequality is an explicit goal .   But then it tries to add some heat to the discussion by abusing the term Serfdom.  I don’t agree with the use of the vague word Serfdom.   Otherwise, the author describes the mechanics of failure at re-regulating the current form of Banking very elegantly.

Why does a country need a large middle class?  Greater political and social stability on which to build a vibrant economy.   The simple fact of the matter is creating a vibrant middle class require redistributing wealth. Uh oh.  Another American thoughtcrime.  I’m actively encouraging redistributing wealth.  Your average deregulator demagogue will now chime in with some faulty logic wrapped in Economics lingo “Redistributing income destroys wealth!”  or the hilarious “deregulated markets are more efficient!”   The general consequences of believing some version of the previous two arguments is greater economic and political disparity.

To specifically refute the wealth destroying argument,  empirical evidence like the banking interests mentioned in the article above repeatedly shows wealth being destroyed any number of ways.  I’d also argue most mature segments of the American economy are Oligopolies continuously destroying wealth anyway.

To specifically refute the deregulated marketeer, the theoretical model is elegant, but humans just don’t work like that and no amount of deregulation gets to the mythic perfectly competitive environment.   Empircal evidence repeatedly shows that unregulated market suppliers continuously destroy wealth by restraining competition.  Some empirical evidence of market deregulation are the repeal of Glass-Steagal Act and the consequent bank bailouts, California’s deregulation of electricity suppliers that lead to artificial scarcity and exorbitant pricing.

Maybe the end-game is class immobility? Maybe that’s the point behind the destruction of New Deal goals?  The next time an industry is deregulated, ( Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) it’s another strike against the vast majority of Americans regardless of your political affiliation.