They way I see it is the rich and their capital are hypermobile and can go almost anywhere... what someone may want to tell the wealthy is that while they CAN go almost anywhere, they HAVE to be somewhere. These folks will need to invest to protect their wealth.. do they want to spend more subsidizing education, infrastructure and entitlements, or security? They're paying a wealth tax either way.

Bearcat has it right, anyone who has traveled in the 3rd world should be horrified by what they see there, the inequity and the kind of society it produces. Burmese days for those at the top and struggle for those at the bottom. Basically what Rick Perry and his Texas ilk want to bring to the US.

My first experience abroad was in a certain Subsaharan nation, won't name it, but it is supposedly has the most hopeful future in that area. I also suspect we might be hearing about pipelines from Uganda running through it in the future, but I digress.

It seemed to me carefree freedom of movement was a luxury. But if you don't mind being a prisoner, cut off from your fellow man, with only the company of your toys, I guess it was alright. People didn't bother buying lawn mowers because it was cheaper to have a poor soul maintaining the lawn with shears. I also noticed, and have since seen it elsewhere, a tendency towards slacking and mild passive aggression on the part of workers reminiscent of many fast-food restaurant employees. I can't blame 'em, you get what you pay for. It does remind me of Frederick L. Olmstead's constant criticism of the Antebellum South, which he related in his 3 volume travel narratives. Nobody seemed to have any get up and go.

He is predicting the future and you're asking for past metrics to prove his prediction. You are saying the State can do this and that, but a LOT of the Rich are ani-state, don't want to pay taxes for anything. I must starve the beast even if the beast is just my local school or the county road in front of my house.

Violent crime HAS been down, but now the prisons are full and the rich don't want to pay taxes for prisons or anything else. Here in KS they cut funding for schools and increased funding for schools (makes sense) the less education kids get the more prisons you need. Our ability to warehouse violent criminals appears to be running up against anti-tax affordability.

In your future nation with large income inequality, I expect you WILL be able to get the Praetorian Guard to fight, you just won't be able to mobilize Real Citizens and expect them to fight for the Nation/Oligarchy. The RICH (and Tea Party) are already showing signs of not wanting to pay taxes for the military or anything else.

Yes the threat is a breakdown of Real SECURITY, not phantom foreign terrorists. I don't think Guatemala or Brazil or Mexico have a lot of radical islamists but they still have a security problem.

I suppose I am asking for past metrics to inform predictions, but only in order to determine times and locations for manifestations of this direct link between income inequality and national security. Is the class warfare you describe imminent? If so, will it rear its bloody jaws in rhetoric and populist politicians (yawn) or in violence and a nouveau-Robespierre Republic? I think I understand your comparison to Central and South America, but even in Systemically Unfair America, the basic institutions of governance still seem to function on both a fairly competent and a fairly egalitarian basis (I could be wrong) where their Mexican or Guatemalan counterparts do not. Also, the OWS folks seem more concerned with modifications to the status quo vice regime change. The protestors also seem conspicuously non-violent and willing to act within the confines of the rule of law. Are they just the tip of the iceberg? If so, when can I plan to see the rest of the berg? I’ll need some more convincing if this is the link to which Mr. Ricks and Mr. Packer refer.

I’m sold on the relationships between income inequality and the overall strength of the economy and between the strength of the economy and national security, but if that’s what he’s talking about, then Mr. Parker is just saying that there exists a relationship between the economy and national security - which is old news.

I want to hear more about a direct link between income inequality and national security. Paint me a picture. With numbers and figures if you have them. Predictions sound better with stats.

Hunger in America isn't.

To reply to TTC: "When obesity is becoming a national problem."

There is much in this nation's obesity problem that is related to lack of income and what the means for purchasing food. Filling your belly or your kids belly is not the same as good nutrition. Cheap carbs might fill you up, but it leads to health issues in the end.

Yes, i agree with you "I would point-out that when the U.S. instituted the draft during World War Deuce, many individuals were rejected due to bad teeth, and poor health, etc..." cyber monday hostgator Thanks,

Once in khaki, gee I looked swell. Full of that Yankee-Doodlee-Dum, along with a half-a-million boots went we went sloggin' through hell. . .man, we kids was dumb. . .brother-buddy JPWREL, can you spare me a dime?

The people who do not HAVE everything they think they are entitled to will call you a class traitor soon if you keep using common sense like that.

The American Dream =was= about mobility. When the textile industry, for example, migrated from the U.S. Northeast to the Old South, workers (to a degree) could move with the jobs, no passports, no visas, pretty much no new language. But now jobs tend to move offshore, to places to which U.S. workers can't follow. By and large, those jobs haven't been replaced, which appears to be the crux of the problem.

One other newly reported factor to consider: If a skilled, educated U.S. worker qualifies for a job across the country, he might not be able to take it because, even if he's up to date with his mortage, he can't sell his house for enough to buy another house elsewhere.

While interesting, and all the rage, this is a side issue to the topic at hand, which is the impact of a failing economy on national secuity.

"Today's poor may well be middle class or rich in the next 10-20 years or the next generation."

If intergenerational mobility was high then there would be no problem. But it isn't. Intergenerational mobility is lower in the US than almost anywhere else in the developed world.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

Even *Rick Sanotorum* is realizing this lately.

At least according to this article (also posted above). Can't speak to the validity of the stats, but the author is a careful one who knows her stuff. From the article:

"In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that "these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.""

And the link again: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576587244025371456.html

Yo, Otter, could you work a bit longer and harder, albeit, keeping your silhouette on the horizon lower. This 3.5 percent increase in my Social Security check ain't cutting it, due to my appetite for the better things in life, brought-on primarily by the old adage: once you've seen Paris, how they gonna' keep you down on the farm. . .get my drift. . .or perhaps I'm getting driffty? : o

I will try, my goal is to work after the Military so I can continue to be a wage slave and support the boomers ;)

Are you bloody serious with this nonsense?

"Does anyone else here wonder if and worry that American soldiers will obey an order to open fire on fellow citizens threatening the interests of American oligarchs?"

I cannot believe you write about American Military History then actually post some of the things you do. As a historian, could you remind me what our oath in the military is again? Also, when did we make the switch from Republic to Oilgarchy? Just want to mark the date and make sure I have the right one. Have you talked to a lot of folks in the military where this question came up? I have not so I am kind of curious as to where to look next time for those types of folks who ponder that question on a regular basis.

Your top quintile is big, 20% of population, over 60 million people. The top 1% getting outlandishly rich is small.

The bottom half of top quintile is pretty middle class it only take about $91,202 to get into top quintile he is talking about.

"The top one percent, meanwhile, saw their incomes increase by 256 percent." These are the Folks they are talking about.
P99-100 (top 1%) — top 1 out of 100 households — income above $382,593 (average income, $1,243,516*)

Come back w some stats about how many of those top 1% kids are in the USMC or Ivy Leaguers are in OBCs.

The point is that the military is mostly made up of middle and working class kids, the officer corps tends to be from the upper income levels, Hammel, like many others in the past attempted to link military service with poverty, an old canard that does not hold water. The 1% remark is just another specious argument and attempt to divide folks, sell it to the Union backed, trust fund babies and other spoiled rich kids at OWS. While many uber rich do look down their nose at the military they would tend to side with the Marxist crazies and not the limo Wall Street folks you seem to despise so much, even if that was their primary source of income. I am so tired of the class/race argument and military service, almost as tired of that as I am of the "class warriors".

EricIII

The rich don't serve period. Those that have the most, have the biggest stake, do the least. It was not always that way, as recently as WW II the rich served willingly. Others worked for the govt for nothing, "dollar a year men".

Most people on this thread have served in some capacity or another. We know who serves in the military, we can just look around and see, or ask them where they come from. It is not really necessary for you to tell us what kind of people serve in the military. Have you run into a lot of soldiers from Choate lately? We already understand the broad middle class serves, we also understand the 1% don't serve. We also understand that with college tuition going up 15-20% a year the middle class is getting put in the squeeze. There are plenty of kids that are going to enlist or go ROTC for that college education. Unfortunately a few of them are going to die, that won't happen to the 1%.

You don't have to be POOR to be an economic refugee in the land of the military. The farm town I grew up near has just about blown away, the population topped out about WW I and has declined ever since. People a just looking for a place.

We can say all this is fair and wonderful. Even if we decide this system is fair? We probably can't afford to have a couple of hundred million Have Nots in America that have no place, no stake in the system.

I recently attempted to get this data from the Defense Manpower Agency. They were able to supply me with a great deal of data but not data relevant to this question. The services do not ask nor record the household income of any members who enlist or are commissioned. They do record home of record data but do not release it even in the aggregate, even to fellow DOD employees researching such issues. Therefore, it would be difficult to compare it to the median income of households within a particular ZIP code in 2000. I guess what I am saying is that I have some doubts about the Heritage study.

Odd, but one of my best friends in the community went to Choate but I realize that we are not the norm.
The people who join do so out of a mix of reasons, Hammel attempted to link service with poverty and few economic choices, it's just not the case and I think you know it. We join for a combination of things-ideals, adventure, service, need of structure, comradeship, travel, money, search for skills, etc...etc...
The super rich don't serve but neither do the super poor and while I understand the argument for a draft so that everyone serves (perhaps that service would have helped Mr. Hammel understand the culture and people who serve a bit better?) I lean a bit towards the Heinlen approach.
Bearcat, I get folks fear and frustration with the economy and those who serve in public office but aren't we the same people who continue to elect these people? I also know that we have gone through far worse in the past and come out of it, hence why I am still optimistic. I don't think advocating class war and for stronger central government is going to help.
I tend to go off on what I consider paranoid, marxist laced rants masquerading as pseudo-intellectualism by some but I get the reason why a lot of average joes are fed up and worried.

I got bubkis for stats on the top 1% and its service record. Pretty sure McCain qualifies (individual net worth of $21 mil, over $100 mil if Cindy's is included) and Jon Kerry (individual net worth in the hundreds of millions, close to a billion if you factor in Ms. Heinz's contributions), but these guys are no doubt outliers. Again, though, I don't see an obvious connection between PVT Richie Rich's AWOL and national security. So the rich don't serve? So what? If they did, would we have better national defense? If so, how?

The indicators below (Marines conducting MOUT training in San Fran, a battalion of leathernecks in Compton) seem like some pretty good signals, but where are those signals now? Also, how should the military get ahead of this eventuality? American cultural awareness?

Didn't MacArthur fire on the Bonus Marchers?

That would be Butte, Montana, where good ole Omar, as well as the Pinkertons bullied miners on behalf of Amalgamated Copper Company. I heard the old timers talk about it, saying their wages in 1914 were still the same as there daddy's were in the late 1800's.

Omar got-off lucky. . .my Grandfather was a doughboy in France and wasn't around to draw a bead on him.

Don't you guys go upsetting the American Dream-ers now.

And so was Martin Luther King, if I recall correctly.
Best,
Tom

and with sufficient demonization and "othering" of the opposition, and you can have yourself a real unintended bloodbath. A few well placed agent provocateurs and general fools, the sort that are drawn to drama like flies to meat, would help out as well.

Make sure one repeats the claims of spoiled, undeserving, lazy, etc. If there is anything Americans love doing, its claiming other Americans are unworthy, these days often contrasted with the deserving poor, who are usually found beyond our borders, as if laziness, poor choices, misplaced priorities and attendant poverty are unrelated factors in the 3rd world.

I was taught in my U.S. history class that the Army Air Corps. bombed the camps of striking coal miners in the twenties. But then again, the class was taught by the USMA history dept...

Perhaps it's time to wake up.

Unfortunately Martin can't.

I do my best, Stratton III, to pretend you're not there. This is because your typical bloviation is both hostile and subtractive. I make this exception because your current rant is supremely dumb.

Does "Kent State" resonate?

Major Dwight Eisenhower met his destiny as he stood at the shoulder CofS MacArthur as the cavalry rode to the rescue of absolutely no one on the streets of our national capital in 1932. Sixty years later, in 1992, as the Rodney King riot in LA exploded, a reinforced regiment of 1st MarDiv quietly deployed to LA to await orders to win back the streets. They expected to arrive locked and loaded even though they had no riot gear and had never experienced a minute of crowd-control training before leaving Camp Pendleton.

During the San Francisco State "riots" of 1969, National Guard troops--many of them mobilized from the SF State campus--were told one fine day that "today's the day we've been waiting for." Cooler heads prevailed after the guard's civilian masters heard that morsel of news. Oh, the good news is that a lot of the part-time student-soldiers left. Just left. But, really, how many does it take to quell a riot the good, ole American way?

If presumably well-trained, street-smart cops in riot-prone or big-marquee cities go off on crowds, why wouldn't shit-scared soldiers with no training while operating under the delusion they're saving America?

A well-trained Marine battalion, some years ago, alighted in San Francisco to earn its special operations certfication in a MOUT environment. The police captain working with the city-camo'd Marines those two or three days of scaring the bejeezus out of bankers and shoppers alike told me the Marines had been trained to take the high ground and set examples via the lonely art of the sniper. San Francisco was selected (a) because it sits between two large bodies of water and (b) its citizenry is considered unstable and riot-prone.

Press the right buttons, and of course "us" is going to open fire on "them".

Are you really going to compare union busting during the red scare days with the military of today? The pinkertons are now the equal of a professional military? Are National Guard units not the 99%? A bit of a reach don't ya think? When outside of a riot do you honestly envision troops obeying an order to shoot other Americans? You really think that we are somehow at this point? The implication was that troops would turn against the populace and not riot control or back in the days of Union riots and their links with marxists and the fear of communidm. Sorry, it comes off as a long bomb reach and while I expect that from Kunino, Admiral and a few others I do not expect that from a historian.

Your rants are paranoid and border on the conspiracy. What you implied is that the military now serves the oligarchy (again, must of missed that change of govt) and that we would somehow begin to turn against the populace on a large scale, simply put, a theory that borders on lunacy. Many of your posts lean far left and your ignorance on MOUT and why they do it in US Cities again brings your ideas back to the conspiracy realm. We go into cities due to realism and the fact that the majority of the worlds population lives in urban areas. Why don't we use just our own MOUT sites? Because after you have been to the same place over and over again the training becomes canned. You have the example of Kent State and that somehow equates to mass military defections going over to the "service" of this so called oligarchy you continue to talk of? Also, you attempted to inject class warfare into service even though it was not like that even during the Vietnam War. Facts are terrible, I know, they can ruin an argument but it has not stopped you yet.
The average troop is far more loyal to the ideals of the Constitution than many of you strong central government advocates are, as a historian, how often have strong central governments stayed straight and encouraged freedom like we have?
Mr. Hammel, while I am sure you view yourself as a historian I am not sure how you can write on military history and yet have so little grasp on how the military works, who joins or where our ideals lay.

The "historian" comment was aimed at Hammel, please forgive any earlier lack of clarification on that.

is what Tykwood is referring to. Only time I know of -- other than, of course, the recent hit on Anwar al-Awlaki -- that American troops deliberately bombed American citizens.

Last I heard, Blair Mountain is going to be strip-mined here pretty soon... Some folks wanted to make it a monument.

Unfortunately, Wombat, the 1% has little to gain from investing here. Beginning with the Reagan S&L smokescreen, the ultra-rich have been divesting their U.S. holdings and investing overseas, where workers are less prone to making demands for a living wage, benefits, retirement, a bathroom within an hour's hike, etc. Now that their money has purchased more compliant economies, they have nothing better to do here than buy our legislators and finish the game of simply fucking with us.

Thank you for this. It's my argument squared and in one place.