I agree with him on this point. I don't support anything (a party) or anyone blindly. This is good start. I agree. I was not a supporter of those policies from Clinton nor Obama. We can disagree as democrats.
NOW - if Biden would pick up that pen and cancel student loan debt. I'd volunteer to work his campaign!!
If he can be smart about this trade agreement, then he has the leadership to cancel the student loan debt.
NO ONE HERE is saying we have to follow someone “blindly.” [I suspect I am assuming, but I think I’m right], that everyone who considers our country’s future is at risk, that we need to hold the line for the Democratic Party, ALSO wants us to work within that party to make it, and all its politicians, MORE responsive to the will of the people, and to the betterment of the people.
It’s not blindly. It’s knowing which side your bread is buttered on, and then working to make the whole system better. We can’t just let the party “leadership” run things without our input and our influence!! Voting once every four years in the national election doesn’t do it! Get involved locally, be vocal, vote in mid-term elections, build the government you want. Speak up. Attend meetings with your representatives. TALK TO THEM! {Who here writes messages to the President on the whitehouse.gov site? I do!}
{Sadly, building from the grassroots is what the ultra-Right did since Reagan, and even though the Left was warned, we didn’t hold them off — and now, here they are.}
No one says stick with Biden blindly. We stay stick with Biden and make sure the Dems know which side THEIR bread is buttered on!!!!!
You get it! I write to President Biden as well as my House rep and Senators regularly. There are several things I would complain about to "Joe" and I do. But in the final analysis, he may be considered one of the most important Presidents in our history! Even if you review the things he did by executive order to reverse the madness of "45" Biden is a hero beyond compare!
There is only one thing that matters. The Earth and our children's future are in the balance. Either we get a Blue Wave Victory Trifecta in November 2024 or we are doomed as a species. The forces of MAGA make Nazis look like pikers.
I would vote "Green" if there was ranked choice voting. It would help build support for a party focused on the Planet. But as it is, any vote not Blue is a vote for fascism.
Agree about the money. I'd go with publicly funded elections with the max donation from corporate oligarchs held to $100 or less. But I dream..
@ Bill. You clearly understand the structure of our American system. Any 3rd party vote takes away from the majority, and in this election cycle the Democrats are likely to have the majority. Therefor, don't support 3rd parties at this time!
Democrats have the opposite problem: we are critical to a fault.
If I had to choose, I think being critical to a fault is the better option though--if we could just curb that a little once the general election comes around!
And this is really what separates a Democratic voter from a Republican. Democrats understand that perhaps Joe Biden may be merely the lesser of two evils. Many Republicans, however, seem to think Trump is the second coming of Christ (quite literally if you're Q Anon). It's party politics either way, but it's party politics with a difference.
I would say that our house is on fire and we better get very clear about supporting Biden in a hurry. We can continue to support progressives who push Biden's policies toward making life for working people and all vulnerable people, more manageable, cleaning up the air and water, making it more likely that more people will vote, evening the playing field, using the tools of democracy to move us forward.
There is absolutely ZERO substance in your comment. You can be snarky and try to take some kind of victory lap for your negativity, but that’s all it is. Negativity. In your argument, there’s no “there” there.
He can't "pick up a pen and cancel student loan debt;" if he could he would. We have checks and balances in this country. Expecting a President to be able to do that is looking for a Dictator, not a President. Biden's plan got struck down by the Supreme Court - but he hasn't given up. He has a Plan B and is working on it.
You should get out and volunteer to work for his campaign NOW! Do you think any Retrumplican is going to eliminate school debt? Biden is the ONLY chance you have, so work for him so he can do it - and work for Democrats up and down the ballot so he has help in Congress to do things that will improve the quality of lives for Americans.
I don't follow anyone blindly either. But there are 2 major political parties. They have platforms which list what their priorities are. The Democrats priorities are (in part) body autonomy, equality (race, gender, age, etc.), responsible gun ownership, protecting social security, proving safety nets, having corporations and the ultra wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, aiding democracies around the world. The ReTrumplican platform as of 2020 is literally "whatever Trump says it is."
I don't blindly follow - I look at the platforms and see which one I agree more with, then I support that group.
If you don't work for Biden; if you don't work for Democrats up and down the ballot, then if the Retrumplican government seizes your home because you have outstanding student loans, or puts you in jail because you decided to choose not to be a parent, or someone you love is a victim of a mass-shooting, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
FYI - Biend is still working for you even if you aren't working for him. See below:
3. Did not even happen - Biden can blame Republicans all he wants but it is HIS responsibility that HIS legislation did not materialize (there’s a case to be made that he could’ve pursued it in a different way that would’ve been less likely to get blocked).
Biden is a typical establishment democrat. Promising the world and delivering nothing while blaming republicans.
Wealth inequality is still rising.
Homeless is still spiraling out of control.
The planet is still dying.
I’m tired of the only “left wing” political party in the country being impotent and incompetent.
Biden is NOT the one who blocked forgiveness of student debt, Janet. That was the sextet on the Supreme Court, urged by lawsuits by Republican supporters. And for your added information he (Biden) is going for a work around to help some students with the debt.
I’m sure he would pick up the pen if he could, unfortunately that is not a unilateral decision. The angle he’s taken at this point is still beneficial.
The foundational step that needs to be taken is to reduce the cost of education in the US.
Can you imagine going to Harvard for $6000? That was a cost of Cambridge when my friend got his masters degree.
I got my Associate's Degree in the mid 80s. I paid $450/semester. I didn't pursue my bachelor's degree at the time. I went back in the early 2000s. To get my Bachelor's degree was about $2,500/class. 15 years and a 27-fold increase! I thought it would get me a better job....it didn't.
An article in the Wall Street Journal about 30 years ago addressed the sudden rise in tuition cost. Their conclusion: colleges raise their prices because they can. It's capitalism.
You are right, and pure Capitalism is evil. It is against the tenets of every religion (except that new Prosperity theology). Unfortunately, we were taught from a young age that in order to be successful, you need to go to college and get a degree. Our parents, who could not afford college were the ones' preaching it because they believed what it could do, but then Greed stepped in. Don't get me wrong, but I don't care who you are, why does a college professor earn $300,000/year? I love Elizabeth Warren, but she was paid $429,981 as a Harvard law professor from 2010 to 2011; did she teach at at Bunker Hill Community College too, and share her expertise with poorer students? No.
I had a Sociology professor, Roland Blanchette (props to him) - He taught at a private college and the community college. He said he taught the same course to each and had the same number of As, Bs, Cs, etc.; the only difference was the ability of the student's to pay. We need more Rolands in this world!
'Pure' Capitalism is not as evil. Unfortunately, this is not Pure Capitalism! The workers, consumers, and Government (the people) have little, to no, influence. In Pure Capitalism, they would have significant influence. This system is more of a plutocracy or Autocracy, where a small number of ultra wealthy have the lions share of wealth and power and use it to gain outsized influence in their selfish (greedy) quest for even more wealth and power.
Democrats can disagree. I think cancellation of student loan debts is one of the worst policy positions ever thought of. I would support a hardship exception to payments but outright cancellation is just pro-college kid discrimination. What about all the other good causes that are not funded because of this policy? What about all those kids that worked instead of college? I got more, but . . .
Do you know what college costs now??? One of my daughters finished bachelors and masters with nearly $60K in debt. That is with her refusing some federal help, and with scholarships offered. The other daughter (twins) was fortunate to have her college paid by her grandmother. The problem here is the cost. It's gone sky-high since I went to school, and wages haven't kept up. It's a drag on our economy in so many ways--housing, family planning, basics. SOMETHING needs to be done. States particularly (and Federal Govt) used to supplement upper education to make it more affordable.
Student loan debt ballooned when the government decided to put the programs into the hands of commercial banks, AND when interest on those loans was points higher than the prime rate for the rest of the country. Many students who worked in programs intended to bring down their debt were unfairly denied those reductions, as well.
The entire loan program became a profit center for the government, not what it was supposed to be. Students paying off their loans at legal rates based on their incomes wind up owing MORE on their loans rather than less, and some pay multiple times the amounts they actually borrowed.
Pretending it’s “unfair” to the borrowers is a cop out. Forgiving huge numbers of these loans is the ONLY fair action…
Student loan debt also ballooned when governments (state and federal) severely cut funding for public colleges and universities, thus passing the costs to students and their families. These cuts in education funding came along with increasing spending for defense and public safety, all the time cutting taxes for the rich.
I have mixed emotions about eliminating the student loan debt. On the one hand, my daughter was saddled with monumental loans that finally, together with my help, she was able to pay off. Neither she nor I will be compensated by this program. In that sense, it is unfair to those who have already paid off their loans to pay off the loans of those who haven't.
On the other hand, the high costs of college education are unfair to those in the middle and lower classes, and being a believer that education is a basic human right that should be equally accessible by all, I believe in public support the for those who cannot afford it.
It's hard for me to ignore the plight of those with massive student loan debt, but it's also hard for me to think that their debts may be absolved while those who have paid their debt are ignored - or even worse, forcing them to pay the for the debts of others with their taxes.
In the end, I think that absolving student loan debt is not the answer to the problem. Instead, we should be focusing on amending the system to make college education universally accessible to all. That will require full public support which will require taxes. As for question of who should be taxed, I adhere to the philosophy: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
You see, the principle behind what you say is, “We did it wrong to so many for so long, it is unfair to do it right for people now.” I don’t subscribe to that.
I’d love for us to find a way to give anyone some sort of tax break who has paid student loans back in the past, perhaps, thirty or forty years, to compensate them for following through. But it is the more recent loans {if memory serves, people WERE paying a good deal higher interest rates than the prime rate as fa back as the late 90s, and the government was raking in a neat profit on the backs of students who were - in my opinion - being fleeced. But i could have my dates wrong.]
As part of this whole mess, programs meant to administer these loans for the benefit of the students put them at a DISadvantage, mis-handling the work options in under-served capacities that were supposed to help people reduce their loans, mis-administering payments so principle was NOT reduced with each payment and people wound up owing more rather than less, in spite of making regular payments based on their income — please, what is “fair” is not to victimize people today because we victimized people yesterday.
This whole “it’s not fair, because I paid mine off,” is a deflection.
Just as a thought, would we keep people enslaved today because we did not free their grandparents? I know, it’s an extreme example, but the principle is not so different.
The manner in which loans have been administered is WRONG, and past students and current students have been victimized, and continuing to victimize them is WRONG.
I would be absolutely in favor of retroactively helping out the generation or two that has been victimized this way, if we can start a movement to do THAT, too.
So if Biden doesn’t give you everything you want you won’t work for his reelection even though the alternative is a guy that not only won’t give you what you want but will actively take away what you have
no one have "given " me anything. Full stop. In fact, ALL (both parties and Wall Street) - mostly have stolen what I worked for.
Give me "everything". Well, this is a comment section and we don't know each other. I don't think to say that I am "demanding everything" for a vote is appropriate.
But he is still a warmonger and advocate for Wall Street. He will sign no laws that will curb the profits of his corporate masters (not that Congress would ever pass any to him).
Why is he a warmonger? Are we currently sending anything but money and supplies to another struggling democracy trying to stave off a land grab by a powerful dictator? It seems he's trying to do everything he can NOT to send troops oversees again.
If he were not a warmonger, he would actively be seeking peace in Ukraine instead of pouring gasoline on the fire by shipping ever more deadly weapons.
Increasing the number of deadly weapons in any environment only increases the slaughter. Americans should be painfully aware of that.
You can't seek a peace with a country who wants to absorb the other country. Russia want to make Ukraine part of Russia. Where's the room for compromise?
You are totally disregarding the fact that the war in Ukraine is a civil war between east and west Ukraine and that the people of eastern Ukraine declared their independence from Kiev after the Maidan Revolution in 2014 that was fostered and supported by the U.S.
You are also totally discounting the wishes of the people of the Donbass and Crimea who wanted no part of the government installed by the U.S.
I am not on Russia's side nor am I on our side. I am on the side of the people of the Donbass and Crimea who expressed their wish to be independent of what they considered an oppressive government in Kiev. They should be allowed to speak for themselves and they should be allowed to determine how and by whom they should be governed.
And we should push for a truce with time sufficient for them to speak their piece. And then all parties should honor their wishes.
You may think that peace is not possible because you believe Putin to be an evil person. But you don't know that and you can't know that until you give it a chance.
It is also possible that you simply do not want peace. You would not be alone in our country.
Like beauty, despotism is in the eye of the beholder. Were the Soviets not despots when they planted offensive missiles in Cuba? (I'm sure you will agree they were.) So are the NATO countries not despots when they plant missiles on Russia's border?
So explain to me why Russians are despots and Americans, who can invade other countries at will, and for no valid reason (e.g., Iraq), are not despots.
Also, please explain why Russia's response to missiles on their border is evil when our response to the Soviet missiles in Cuba was patriotic - bearing in mind that, had it not been for the discretion of the Soviets, we would have started WWIII.
The U.S. has started wars with far less provocation than that for which the Russians invaded Ukraine last year, yet the Russians are despots while we are great saviors spreading democracy.
After a careful examination of your own behavior, it's not hard to see the similarity between your behavior and that of others. That should be a lesson. And as the old proverb goes, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
wrknight- Not in the least, no. He is the most progressive DEM Prez we have seen in 60 years. Was NOT a Biden fan when he was first elected, but pleasantly surprised at his directions, directives and policies. He's quietly following the ideals of FDR'S New Deal that created and sustained the middle-class until those policies were reversed by the corporate-owned GOP. As a Dem I am pleased and look forward to voting for him again.
I agree that Biden is the most progressive president in 60 years, but progressive is relative. So, yes, relative to all the presidents of the last 60 years, he is indeed the most progressive. But you can't begin to compare him to FDR. FDR believed that to bring about prosperity for all Americans, the rich had to contribute. And he acted on that by imposing very high taxes on extreme incomes and taxes on luxury items that only the rich could afford. Biden, on the other hand, does nothing to curb the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. He does nothing to curb the acquisitions, mergers and stock buy-backs of mega-corporations forming monopolies. He has not strengthened the enforcement powers of the EPA, OSHA, SEC or other regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect us from corporate greed. But the war department continues to get more and more money - and who is going to pay for it.
None of Biden's progressive programs have cost corporate America one cent. In fact, corporate America is profiting from them as the money is paid first to businesses under contract to perform the services and after they take their cut, the remainder trickles down to workers. (It doesn't go directly to you or me.) Secondly, the money needed for his progressive programs is being borrowed from the wealthy, from corporations and from other governments, to be paid back with interest by future taxpayers. If you don't believe this, simply look at the debt clock which is accelerating daily and ask yourselves, who is getting that money and who is going to pay it back. (Follow the money.)
Back in FDR's time, Republicans accused Democrats of 'tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend". Today, it's "borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend", so tomorrow, we'll get the money back with interest. It's win-win for those with lots of money they don't otherwise know what to do with.
In Inflation Reduction Act, Biden is reducing deficits, primarily via new taxes on large corporations in the form of a minimum tax on financial income (book income), a stock buyback tax, and an excise tax on drug companies that enables the government to control drug prices. We have a new minimum 15% tax on corporate book income for corporations with profits over $1 billion. Biden has proposed to Congress raising the corporate income tax to 28%. He's proposing taxing capital gains at the new top marginal income tax rate of 39.6 % (plus the 5% NIIT) for taxpayers whose income exceeds $1 million.
The Inflation Reduction Act put a 1% excise tax on the total value of stock repurchases or “stock buybacks.” Biden's current budget proposes quadrupling the new tax on buybacks to 4%. His current budget also proposes a “billionaire” minimum tax. The budget proposes a new minimum tax of 25% on income and unrealized capital gains for “the wealthiest 0.01 percent.”
He hasn't strengthened enforcement powers because the Supreme Court just ruled that agencies don't have authority to create regulations or enforce them (see Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency). CONGRESS must give the authority to the agencies - it's not within the President's powers.
A 1% excise tax on "certain repurchases" of stock. The deficit may decrease this year because the economy is still recovering. So it will be hard to tell just how much those taxes reduce the deficit. We'll know more by the end of the year.
As for the regulatory agencies, just how hard has he pushed Congress to give them the needed authority? I have a vivid recollection of FDR using the bully pulpit to get things accomplished that Republicans didn't like, but I haven't seen Biden being very aggressive in that arena.
So you think that student loan debt is a bigger priority than animal agriculture, our planet literally being on fire, childhood poverty, the wage vs cost of living gap getting bigger by the day, inequality, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, gun control, etc? Coming from a Progressive, I can tell you that Biden, a corporate dem, doesn't care about anything I just listed. You might as well forget about that student loan debt. And if that does get paid off, then I want my big fat check for not adding any more humans to this horrific world. But I'm not holding my breath.
I propose that if school debt can't be forgiven then the Government should at least eliminate interest and late fees, so people are only paying back what they borrowed.
Why do you say that? It’s a Straw man. You actually think Biden is responsible for those policies? or ANY policy making? or ANY other decisions? He can’t finish a sentence or remember where he is most of the time.
That's utter nonsense. While Biden lacks the eloquence of Obama or some other leading Democrats, he is not only clearly in full command of his faculties, he has shown himself to be an excellent leader who has outfoxed the Republicans on numerous occasions. The attempts to make him out to be a doddering old fool are right-wing conspiracy theorist BS.
Actually, he was. Legislation has the appearance and consistency of sausage when made....Biden was personally involved in the negotiations. He answers hard questions put to him by hostile reporters all the time. I'm close to his age. Didn't think he could. But he does.
Sounds like you have actual malice disease. Maybe he should sue your ass for defamation.
Well, if the right-wing claim that someone else is making all the decisions for Biden -- rumor has it that it's Obama -- is true, whoever it is has been doing a splendid job on the economy, repeatedly exceeding expectations.
This one thinks Biden is in the same bad shape Ronnie Reagan was in at the end of Saint Reagan’s term in office. But Biden has never mistaken a movie scene for an actual event in war, and he does NOT sleep away his afternoons, nor is he incapable of speaking off-the-cuff.
And Biden is far more in control of his administration than Dubya was. We did not have to spread rumors about Cheney taking that over. it was right out in the open. Dubya just let him do it.
I am reluctant to point out that we have had an incompetent president in the past [both Republicans] — one who was half-asleep and one who let his Vice-President run the office for whatever reason — but other than being old, and other than Republicans keeping up the drumbeat that’s he’s antiquated, we have little reason to mistrust that Biden is in charge and mentally up to the job. He speaks slowly but cogently, and he speaks on topic and substantively in public.
This guy here is buying what the Repubs are shoveling out. Sad, but that tactic does seem to work on some types of people.
OMG! J.Pat, really! You think Biden is incapable of knowing what he is doing? He is older, yes, but he is totally present. The agism spouted by so many these days is really sad, but against older and younger people, as though middle-aged white men are the only ones who know and can do anything. What is that but agism! If you want to look at an older person who is making little or no sense and can't keep a sentence going that is not an oft repeated one, look at Donald Trump who is made out to be so much younger than Biden but is really less than 4 years younger and a whole lot less capable. We need to be encouraging more young people to step up and run for office all over the country at every level, but people who actually care about this nation, not just what they can get for themselves from being in office.
Screw you. As a child of a stutterer, I can tell you that his hesitancy in words, pausing mid sentence, and seemingly mumbling are all parts of the stuttering. He stops talking so he doesn't stutter; he mumbles are an attempt to slow the stutter. It breaks my hart to hear people make fun of him because of byproducts of a stutter.
And yes, the man's foot got caught in the toe clip on his bike pedal and he fell over. Yes, he tripped over a sandbag at the AirForce Graduation, but if he were so frail, he would have broken a hip or a shoulder or a rib - he's in shape because none of that happened!
J-Pat Don't allow the perfect to be an enemy of the good. Besides Who could be replacing him at this moment? You are not exactly a local, are you? Who would be a better president for the USA?
I am a U.S. citizen, i currently live and work in the U.K. but still get to vote.
Once upon a time Bernie Sanders was the best candidate, however now in my opinion federal electoral politics is broken, badly flawed, corrupt and no longer works for the working class or average americans. The voting system has to change so that the popular vote winner wins the election, you know… like a democracy. Money has to come out of politics : no big donors or professional lobbyists, no dealing in stock and shares, etc.
The ballot system has to change to make it easier, or even realistically possible, for third parties. The current duopoly is not fit for purpose.
As for who; if i was forced to pick, from a weak field, Cornell West is way better on every subject that all the others.
@ J-Pat. If you’re leftist you should have a grip on structuralism? You wouldn’t be so down on Biden perhaps if you understand that the triple institutions of two-party system, primary system of choosing candidates and the Electoral College together mean you can’t get a Biden alternative to win the office. Demeaning Biden only increases the chances of another Republican president getting in!
Now I KNOW he is a Putin troll, since supporting his candidate will help GUARANTEE that we get SCUMp back into power, FOR LIFE this time, and an effing 100 year + reign of abject fascism and (political, racial, ideological) genocide (IF we even last that long due to the torrid environment :( ).
Yawn. Why are you even here? If you call anyone who makes your cognitive dissonance kick in “a Troll”, what’s the point of you being in this debating space?
He has has “gaps in understanding,” but I give him a lot of credit for the fact that he sometimes - increasingly often these days - tries to grab his courage and his compassion, and take the leap into a healthy future for all.
Big Steel, AT&T, some auto firms have knelt. Back in the pre-Reagan days. Price gouging is best dealt with passively through taxes, both on personal and corporate levels. There used to be muti-tiered corporate tax levels, retained earnings caps, caps on deductions for executive salaries (enter the unethical stock options scheme); a $250K 'cap' on personal income (70+% on everything over that, 92% right after WWII). The country grew, the middle class was created and grew, social programs were created to deal with the remaining issues. Then the Reagan revolution started to dismantle it all, with a (n unsustainable) drop to 28%. Now who even pays that? Average man or woman pays 15+% in payroll taxes right iff the top to begin with, more that the fat cats and corporations pay. We need to return to high marginal tax rates as a way of protecting our fellow Americans from the greed, corruption and brutality of the 1 percenters. Fighting in the streets won't do it. Dismantling gerrymandering and voting for progressive candidates will. Relying once again on the rule of law would certainty help. It's up to us, not our government, to do, for our elected government should reflect our beliefs and ability to thrive, not just exist. For all of us.
and also incentivises corporations to invest in R & D and sharing with more of their stakeholders than just their shareholders, many of whom are in for the short ride before selling off anyway.
Agree with your points Art, but this started under Carter, and Reagan massively accelerated it. Let’s not pretend Democrats are not knee deep in corruption as well.
Yeah, I kind of agree on a near-term basis. But I was involved in protests during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and things really did change for the better. But the Nixon-Reagan crowd of crooks upped the anti with the huge tax cuts of 81-86, getting a pass on Iran-Contra; Clinton, OKing repeal of Glass-Steagall and turning banking into a casino - bye bye savings accounts - seeking popularity by courting Gingrich (left with a surplus but at whose expense?); W's batshit crazy 8 years (tho I think he sensed the strings manipulating him late in his 2nd term); the reticence of Obama to use his political instead of oratorical power to rally us to the cause, so evident during the very first days of his administration. The bad news is that it looks like we're done for. But the good news is all these things have acted like a vacuum forming machine, forcing the irregular features into sharp relief so there is no longer any place to hide, we can see the exact locations and connections of those who enslave us. And there's way more of us than there are of them. To level the playing field we need to elect smart local progressives, end gerrymandering, elect smart federal progressives, fix the tax laws, eliminate the dollar as a valid currency (to disable the bad guys), give everyone an equal, substantial amount of the new currency. Start over. The tax laws will help to maintain some sort of equality, mainly by new products, processes, markets and, oh yeah, jobs! Every citizen should be required by law to serve at least one year in local and federal government, to understand its importance and necessity. Ooops, I must have dozed off. Did I say anything when I was asleep?
"involved in protests during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and things really did change for the better"...
At the end of the 60s, other things started to go the other way where the big winners were the capitalists, and tax laws and many others were written to take money from the general public and gifted to those same capitalists. Even if we, the 99.9%, get back to where we were with the share of the economy, we are still starting from a lower position and really should get that money back (which won't happen)!
100%. Something I never hear is how all the I’ll gotten gains should be taken away and redistributed, then we can reimplement sound public policy surrounding taxes, etc.
What we should all remember is that Corporations are the functional arms of global capitalism. Trump knows this but his base does not. What they need to realize is that every time a corporation exports a good job to a person in a low-labor-cost venue overseas, they effectively import a bad job (or no job) into one of our heartland communities. Of course Trump and his wannabe contenders blame it all on people coming here. Immigrants! Get real folks - it's not the people coming here that are taking away jobs! It's the jobs being taken away by corporations! Trump is pushing the cover story that blinds his base to their reality. He is just twisting the real legitimate resentment they feel to take the blame away from the real cause of hollowing out American jobs. He is hiding the fact that his base are being taken to the cleaners by the same people they are voting into power!
Oh my goodness!! That was so well said! It explains everything! The sad part is those people that are blindly following Mr. Trump will not listen to this argument. They simply will not realize that they have been duped!!
Won't admit they have been duped. Trump is running the same con that his base has fallen for for years, only as a foolproof investment scam, a megachurch promising heaven for donations, or a catfish/prince charming lovebombing.
@Peggy. Many of them won't admit they have been had. But happily quite a few former Trump voters are "over it" and looking for alternatives. Also happily, one alternative is to not vote at all. I don't want to sound anti-democratic, but I am reminded of the grandmother who told the precinct worker that she knew all about the election but was not going to vote anyway. When asked why she said, "It only encourages them..."
And yet, this essay we are all commenting on is about how it's a good thing (finally something I can agree with) that Biden is moving to reverse these globalization policies pushed by Clinton and Obama and somehow it's still all DJT's fault!
@Rhonda. Careful how you describe the political debate. No one is saying that globalization is Trump's fault (except for his pro-dictator policies). I have to say there is some substance to your critique of Clinton AND Obama could have done more to reverse. BUT the point is, Biden is moving to square things up. So, bemoan the past? Or look what we might be able to improve? Biden is on the "improve" track.
Completely agreed. The most tragic part is that no amount of reasoning, or evidence can ever convince his base otherwise.
I can’t help but notice that the younger generations, which were not subjected to a perpetual barrage of red scare propaganda, are capable of acknowledging that for-profit businesses are capable of doing evil.
The older Trump supporters grew up with the nonstop red scare nonsense. And as a result, cannot fathom a world in which capitalism is failing on its own. This is why they’re obsessed with finding a conspiracy that’s destroying capitalism from within. Of course, it has to be because of the government, the globalists, etc.
Many of my family members have fallen for this nonsense, and there is simply no convincing them.
The similarities to Weimar Germany are uncanny, and I cannot believe that the American right fails to see the similarities.
I maintain hope that we can reach the younger generations before the corporate propaganda machine gets them too.
As a former manufacturing consultant and someone who has worked in manufacturing, there are three components to it. Materials, Overhead, and Direct Labor going into the costs of part, product, etc. The percentages vary with Direct Labor being the smallest percentage. So what gives?
Material costs will be similar. US Overhead comes with a lot of inputs (EPA, OSHA, OT laws, sick time, municipal and state taxes, SS, healthcare insurance, etc. [there are more]). Direct Labor is the smallest percentage of those three factors. You cut Labor and much of the largest factor disappears. You move to Thailand, Philippines, China, Malaysia, etc., its lower Overhead and Direct Labor cost. That is the quick snapshot look.
@Bill. Clearly you can do a P&L. But I might have missed my point. Typical car manufacturer makes 16% to 19% gross margin. Labor costs are typically 16% (varies by manufacturer). If by manufacturing offshore labor can be reduced to (say for example) 12% the gross profit range goes up to between 20% and 23%. This boost in margin is what is driving manufactures to set up in "low labor cost" venues. When you add tax incentives that some countries provide in order to attract manufacturers you end up with a lot of American jobs in manufacturing lost and a lot of people in (formerly low labor cost communities in the USA) unemployed or under-employed. This breeds a lot of resentment. The point of my post was to point out that wealthy oligarchs are doing two things - they are the principal drivers of offshoring jobs AND they are the principal financiers of right wing demagogues feeding off of the natural resentment of people. These same robber barons and fat cats are exploiting that resentment by financing media outlets that blame lost jobs on immigrants and people of color thus distracting the public from seeing the real culprits. Forgive me if this sounds like preaching to the choir - I'm just trying to be clear on what I was trying to get across in my post. I was not talking about accounting - I was talking about the irony of fat cats both taking conservative voters to the cleaners by offshoring their jobs AND taking them to the cleaners again by financing greedy autocratic demagogues.
I am in agreement with you. When I was with Ingersoll Engineers a galaxy far away and light years in the past, we found similar. Yes, corporate oligarchs are the principal instigators here. And yes a lot of jobs are lost. And yes people are picking on the wrong scapegoat.
Not an accountant, but, I still had to know this. And I was talking about my 40-something years in supply chain, manufacturing, planning, and consulting. Not disputing and hoping you would say more to educate people what the issues are and why the oligarchs are doing it.
Maybe it was his 'known to be dying part' that made President Roosevelt so humane. Also, his chronic illness experience and his strong humanity response to it..
Yes, just IMAGINE how these effing rightwingnut NAZIS would have gone after FDR if he was around TODAY!!
Their SHITler would be mocking him for his illness, and the rest would be calling him a commie pinko socialist, and trying (in vain) to assassinate his character.
So globalization was great for America's fat cats and China, but lousy for American workers. How frustrating is that! Trying to do the right thing, we did the wrong thing.
I bought into the sales pitches for globalization from both sides of the political aisle, especially Al Gore's; he's a leader that I trusted implicitly. In retrospect, it looks like he was right about global warming and wrong about globalization, proving for me, in a most embarrassing, gut-wrenching way, that you need to deeply evaluate each issue on its own merits and that no leader, despite his or her intelligence and experience, gets everything right all the time. Which makes the weight we carry as informed, involved citizens that much heavier. (I'm already overwhelmed, just with the firehose of outrages originating from and sustained by Trump and his MAGA Republicans, too numerous to name here.)
James Muncy ' The 'cultural chaos' driven by the right wing owned media is intended to overwhelm informed, involved citizens along with those who are just trying to survive. The distractions keep US from zeroing in on the obscenely wealthy billionaires who suck all the wealth up, and use it to buy our government, including the Supreme court, and legions of crooked lawyers to interpret the laws in an attempt to buy time and outwit justice itself. The good news is that they are about to lose.
I lived outside Toledo, Ohio when NAFTA was being debated, then passed. Marcy Kaptur, Toledo area's congressional representative lobbied vehemently against NAFTA because she knew how it would hurt her constituents. Toledo is a rust belt manufacturing city. She was right. Protecting corporations does not protect ordinary Americans and their families. Families need protection, not the morbidly rich, who hoard the financial resources.
One need only bike tour the Bernie Sanders and Elise Stefanik sides of Lake Champlain to see this stark contrast. Plattsburgh bought the one big corporation's line and tanked when they left, and Vermont diversified its economy to serve its people.
JennSH-- I love that phrase “morbidly rIch”! It brings to mind a crane that need to lift the weight of these greedy entities off the shoulders of the American people.
Did Mexican laborers steal Toledo jobs - or did Chinese laborers do so? These are not the same thing.
A labor union in Toledo can work with a labor union in Canada or in Mexico against an automaker - just as unions in Ohio had to learn to unite with workers in Michigan - and just as unions themselves had to learn to unite Black, White, and other workers despite every complex division (while containing Communist agents on the one hand and corporate agents on the other).
But not with China.
And that's the problem of the rust belt - the possibility of collaborating with others on the continent in countries with reasonable laws was crushed when the "low hanging fruit" from China became available. Workers will need to develop means of uniting across national borders (and across language barriers) with techniques comparable to those developed to navigate interstate borders. But it can only work when a legal system is representative.
You know the difference between Democrats and Republicans? You just showed everyone. We can always admit when we are wrong. Yes, we make mistakes; however, we admit them (most of us!) and vow to learn from them and do better. I salute you, Sir. I was wrong too and oh how I wish we had not accepted globalization!
Peggy Freeman : Globalization was an offer we could not refuse. With our right wing media machine owned by the wealthy. We have true election interference. With the 'Electoral College' , and so many other drags on voting rights like gerrymandering, and even imposters, like George Santos, who was installed by dirty money. His Republican constituents did not appreciate being tricked, I'm guessing. Dirty money screws both sides. If only they could see it. Maybe some are blue now....
Actually, I don’t know any rabid Hillary fans. I held my nose to vote for her. Many decent people did the same. Rumors were that “it was her time” and who ever thought TFG could get elected?
I can’t agree more! Ever since Sam Walton abandoned “made in America” and chased more and cheaper products from China, along with NAFTA and Corporations leaving the country for less regulation and cheap labor, I’ve been screaming that out global race for cheaper goods was a race to our economic undoing! Not protecting our workers, their safety, pay and healthcare by demanding China and other nations adopt higher worker standards meant to compete, we’d have to adopt their lower standards! A race to the bottom instead of lifting up the world’s exploited workforce to US and European standards! Plus, we could’ve competed on making a uality, long lasting products instead of cheap, disposable products that’ve contributed to the global waste and quick reduction of resources! Better products & worker protections means higher cost but a higher standard of living for all. Just not as much profit for the overly greedy corporate stockholders or executive bonuses who buy politicians. There in lies the rub. Vote for Progressive Dem’s and maybe things can finally change.
Nuki Mo--So glad you brought up the point about lowering our country’s labor standards to compete. Once upon a time one of the criteria for a job search was better paid benefits--whoops, where’d they go?
I would suggest it’s not so much corporate greed these days, but majority shareholder greed. In 1980, the majority shareholder class celebrated & supported 1) Milton Friedman’s “shareholder economy” theory (sold to the public as the new “free market economy”) which posited that publicly traded corporations must prioritize the majority shareholders interests in all decisions - which could be simply summarized as more money for the investor, less money for everyone else
(fyi - Adam Smith (1776) warned that when investors are getting a bigger and bigger share of income - which means everyone else’s share is less- conflicting “interests of those live by profit & the general interest of the society”), society is in decline. No wonder he also argued that Corporations should not be allowed to exist, as they would use their financial advantage to pay off legislators to pass laws that served the corporate interests and to eliminate competition however they could, while keeping wages low and prices high. (Wealth of Nations, Book one, chapter XL & X (conclusion), respectfully)
It was also around 1980 that we began seeing what I can only describe as a major PR effort to convince Americans that the “Rich and Famous” are not only to be admired, but also their lifestyles to be envied, if not emulated (in contrast to the long history of middle-America’s distrust, if not revulsion, of those who flaunted their wealth).
It was also in the 1980s that we were introduced to the Federalist Society and their “Constitutional Originalism”. Today, the darling of the Republican Party, Federalist Judges have been good friends to the investor class and corporations that make them exponentially more wealthy each decade.
Lots more happened since the 1980s that has brought us to this moment where some of us are seriously worried about the future of America’s unique experiment in Democracy, as well as the founding principles of absolute and universal human rights, possible only in the absence of the arbitrary abuse of power & tyranny. And while I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, I do believe that the investor class - in service to their addiction to MORE - more $, more power - have played an instrumental role in the growing assault on Freedom and liberty. (Aristotle called this addiction Pleonexia, the effort to acquire more power/status via any means necessary; see also Dr Carrie-Ann Biondi, assistant professor of philosophy at Marymount Manhattan)
Such a great post, Bob! The strategy to denigrate Biden is so overwhelming and follows the Benghazi and email server lies about Hilary Clinton but articles from experts and good people like you counter those lies. More please🙏🏻
I can't think of a modern economist who has been more consistently wrong than Larry Summers. Any position he takes I immediately treat with suspicion & doubt.
I worked there at the time. He also tried to take away a federal grant from a young female researcher and hand it to a crony ... and the CDC told him no. It was the last straw. Arrogant and clueless. I'm amazed that he didn't end up in Trump administration.
"The age-old economic doctrine of comparative advantage assumes that more trade is good for all nations because each trading partner specializes in what it does best."
This is one of the few things Adam Smith got wrong. It was brilliant in 1776, when trade between comparable economies (like England and France) was restricted by tariffs. The famous example was the thought experiment of the irrationality of making wine in Scotland and whiskey in France. By doing what each country did best, products could be exchanged to the benefit of everyone.
However, the thought experiment does not apply when free trade is between a rich, highly-regulated, economy and a poor, unregulated economy. Then you get what Ross Perot called "a giant sucking sound." He happened to be right.
And you are also right, NAFTA led directly to Trump. But you missed out one of the beneficiaries: the six wealthiest families in Spain.
Adam Smith actually did not create the doctrine of comparative advantage: he created the doctrine of absolute advantage, which is similar but slightly different. Comparative advantage was created by David Ricardo.
Smith was actually not an ardent free trader: he noted some significant benefits of trade such as getting products at a lower cost, a greater division of labor due to larger markets, and economies of scale in production, but he also noted that there were reasons to prefer supporting domestic industry over foreign industry. It was Ricardo who turned free trade into a religion among the intellectual elite. This is ironic, because Ricardo's argument for free trade is far flimsier than Smith's arguments. Comparative advantage only works in a world with two countries, two commodities, and decreasing returns to scale (meaning that the cost of production increases as production increases). It also only works if capital is not allowed to move across national borders and if the economy is at full employment. If any of those assumptions are dropped, comparative advantage collapses.
Indeed, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage (Principles, Chapter VII) depends crucially on the assumption of immobility of capital. (Decreasing returns to scale are the normal state of affairs in a mature market. "Two countries, two commodities" are not assumptions, only simplifications for the purpose of constructing the example. ) Someone once mentioned to me that modern theory has overcome that assumption but I could not trace the reference he gave. Until proven otherwise, in today's economy comparative advantage in trade is bunk.
If you drop the simplification of two countries and two commodities, the argument that free trade will benefit all countries falls apart though. For example, if there are three countries and three commodities, it is possible that one country will not have a comparative advantage in any commodity. In that case, the country will import everything it consumes and all of its domestic industry will shut down, which will obviously leave the country worse off (unless one makes the insane assumption that economies always trend to full employment and that new industries will just magically pop into existence, an assumption which is too stupid to refute). As Erik Reinert says, inefficient industry is better than no industry at all.
It is ironic that the advocates for free trade use an argument which depends on assuming immobility of capital. They will immediately turn around and advocate for deregulation of capital flows, which invalidates their argument for free trade.
Even Prof Reich is not claiming that comparative advantage is bunk as I read him - but rather, it's just a partial account.
It's not good enough for two countries to both obtain comparative advantage of the benefits are concentrated for a tiny group, while the costs are born in very unfair ways.
I think that's a fair analysis - as long as we acknowledge other possible benefits of comparative advantage that are likely to be taken for granted. For example, the absence of massive world wars is a substantial advantage of a "fair" trading regime (on with relatively low tariffs) - tariffs are routinely factors lurking behind the scenes in wars, imperialism, and much of the world's ugliest mischief.
Now, will Chinese billionaires collaborate with American billionaires to avoid warfare between the two superpowers? How durable is that? My expectation...is that it would be far better if an American middle class interacted with a Chinese middle class (as well as middle classes in Mexico etc) - the same way American auto workers "compete" with Germans, Brits, and Japanese. Comparative advantage could play a role in building such a world - but not if liars and cheats like Trump can tell people who "won" that they are losers, and tell losers that they are winners...
The idea of comparative advantage in trade has entered the sphere of received wisdom. I'll let RR speak for himself on whether he continues to believe in it. Of course there are advantages to be gained from trading among nations, as you point out, some of which go well beyond trade itself. The point is that the specific economic theory of comparative advantage is, as far as I can determine, bunk because one of its critical assumptions -- the immobility of capital -- no longer holds. (Another of Ricardo's assumptions, of course, was the immobility of labour, but that one still largely holds: There is labour mobility across nations, but only at the margin. The vast majority of the labour force stays put.)
As BA has pointed out, Adam Smith had a much more nuanced view of the advantages of trade. For some reason, Ricardo's theory has lingered in the public consciousness, even though a key assumption of his theory is no longer valid.
I may be wrong - it's been decades since I studied Ricardo - but I thought he accepted a view of ships as capital (not just the manufacture of vessels, but capital itself). My recollection was that other, later economists shrugged aside trivial details like imperfect knowledge, transportation costs, etc in order to make beautiful models that do not actually describe the real world. Please correct if I'm wrong.
I think the received wisdom isn't necessarily a lie - just such a tiny piece of the story that nuances will get deliberately obscured by politics. NAFTA enforced with real law that wasn't simultaneously striving to dismantle American labor and treat corporations as citizens COULD have yielded very different outcomes of the US president in 2001 actually liked labor unions. He didn't. So free trade was abused.
But those sorts of abuses are my memory of Ricardo's thesis - local people taking received wisdom of the day to abuse and exploit others as if that was "Capitalism." It wasn't. They just erred (or rather, they may have lied when selling errors proved lucrative).
David Ricardo didn't turn "free trade" into a religion - British capitalists distorted Ricardo to justify opium sales to China and imperialist practices pretty much everywhere else.
Ricardo's insights were pretty powerful - not anywhere near as simplistic as assuming two countries and two products. What he missed was political economics - the possibility that someone might profit more by monopolizing a good from another country, even if that increased the price to such an extent it left almost everybody worse off. Yet that's exactly what imperialism prefers - starve the Irish or the Indians - not because it makes anyone better off, but because in the face of starvation, a small powerful group can extract great rewards (in India) or externalize the costs of ridiculous mistakes.
NAFTA contributed to Trump. You leave out all the Republican polices and activities. And the whole Dubya debacle of an administration [after he was out-to-lunch in the run-up to 9-11, and people grew afraid of further attacks, and we turned to invading Iraq and the Patriot Act and all kinds of hope for a Strong Man to protect us!!] — egad, people, think of human psychology, not just abstract politics. Yeah, NAFTA and the WTO helped us send our jobs to countries with cheap [sometimes de facto slave] labor, but it’s how the Republicans played people’s reactions to that — blame loss of jobs or lousy pay on immigrants, for instance — and put our whole country into chaos with Iraq and Afghanistan and the banking debacle of 2008 {the bailout of which was set up under Dubya, but delivered to Obama to oversee, with nothing available for homeowners! — kind of the way Trump set up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, left the government out of it, and delivered it to Biden to oversee} — that sort of thing and more emotional and religious shenanigans — is what moved us to Trump. Engineering the chaos in our society and taking advantage at every opportunity {see the actions of Mitch McConnell} is what delivered us to Trump
We could have a long argument about whether free trade works or not and about what conditions are necessary for it to work. What we know for sure is that the trade that has occurred between the US and China has never been free trade. America practiced free trade while China practiced overt trade protectionism. It's like America took a knife to a gun fight. Our politicians sold us down the river for the benefit of the large multinational corporations who bankrolled their re-election campaigns.
I completely agree. You forgot to mention the devastating impact NAFTA had on Mexican farmers. Many of them were wiped out. In many ways, the Clinton administration was a disaster. You were one of the exceptions.
professor reich: finally, some good news from the biden administration, especially after biden recently approved the Willow oil drilling project, which is absolute madness.
They were young and brought a fresh look and new ideas to the presidency. But with youth on their sides, Clinton played school boy games and Obama got played by McConnell ( mind you McConnell being a old experienced politician knew tricks learned by his longtime in the Senate.
I have always felt that globalization is a euphemism for economic imperialism - modern day colonialism. Rich and powerful countries exploiting the underdeveloped for resources and labor; at the same time abandoning their own workers. Corporations are replacing nation states. They, not governments are making the rules. And how’s that going, one might ask. My answer is not good! Our very Earth is rebelling; it is on fire. Our greed is driving us over a cliff. The bill for abandoning humanity’s core values has come due! If we can’t come up with leaders with integrity, wisdom, intelligence, compassion and vision we are doomed. We are the only species causing our own extinction. To think: this is where our intelligence has gotten us! Maybe not so smart, after all.
Nice that you can see the fundamental problem. Would it surprise you to find out that this is the very issue that was raised in our origin story as told in the Bible? God says ‘make the earth a paradise under my guidance,’ and the rebel angel said, ‘you don’t need to listen to him, you’re smart enough to be independent, you will be fine.’ We were conned and this world today is our final lesson. Class over. The bell is ringing. Time for the original Teacher to take back the school.
It was God’s choice to let us learn this the hard way. It hurt, but He can undo all the damage. He can in effect reach back in time, and resurrect all he wants who are now dead, so to him, they are not lost. (There is no inherent immortal soul, that in fact was part of Satan’s lie, that we don’t really die.) And of course he can repair the planet.
If all this sounds strange to you, it shouldn’t. It’s been in the Bible all along. But the churches don’t teach it. They are part of the con, although they may not realize it. And all the contradictory confusion in religion is part of the obfuscation by that Enemy of truth. Don’t let him defeat or discourage you.
I recommend jw.org. You won’t likely agree with all of it, but you should appreciate the simplicity and directness of explanation.
Yes the word Satan translates to “opposer, enemy” and devil means slanderer. One passage in scripture indicates that Satan was Eden’s trusted guardian angel who went rogue with a plan to slice off a kingdom of his own. So he went bad right there, not eons before. And his first overt act was to slander God, calling Him a liar.
See both points: Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Genesis 3:1-5. (The “king of Tyre” was never in Eden, so this is clearly addressing the one who was; snakes can’t talk, but they can be made to appear to.)
Capitalism has a strange connection to imperialism. Think of 19th century Britain selling opium in China - but banning it at home. Think of 18th century Britain selling slaves globally - but strictly limiting them at home. And think of 17th century Britain stealing land from far corners of the world - but vigorously defending property rights at home.
Similar stories for Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, French...the colonial imperialists exploited the "lawlessness" of foreign territories to profit from trade that would never be tolerated at home.
Finally we hear the truth and not a NPR talking heads version. The American oligarchy and private equity have bought off the political establishment to make millions off the American people. When will it stop?
Show me an NPR journalist who became a mega-millionaire and I'll believe they are sellouts.
Mainstream corporate media was always "sold out" - Dan Rather and others were professionals who were paid for by corporate sponsors who valued them because such professionals got their products/services to certain audiences. BUT the Dan Rather's, Peter Jennings, Cronkites etc of the world are professional - they might err, but they tried their very best not to profit from error, and fix mistakes. So does NPR. We cannot depend upon receiving news of the world exclusively from angels - but we can insist on professionalism...and they've done quite a good job - without a single journalist who got rich from lying.
How did this get turned into what NPR journalist make? All I said is there reporting is shallow when it comes to who in this economy is making all the money. Another message board ready to POLOTIC and not journalist.
As for talk about Afghanistan...I was there. So we're many many Americans. To shrug it aside is to disdain those people who tried their best and aren't sure what to do or feel. It's worth talking about.
Iraq? Different story. One that everyone in media gets wrong - esp in leftwing circles, where people talk up a $5 billion no-bid contract as if it was a big deal, and completely miss the $2 trillion per year oil bonds market and price range fixing scheme that built the political machinery to flip OH, PA, and empower or enrich private equity in charge of multiple GOP loyalist states. There's no way to talk about Iraq other than hanging out heads in shame for letting thousands of Americans die and hundreds of thousands of others merely to ensure US based fracking leases would be profitable for 10-20 years.
But NPR is never going to help sell Biden. That's our job as Americans who love having a country that hasn't been utterly corrupted. If we want to keep this country, it's on us to do it - no media outlet and no ad campaign will come to our rescue. Prof Reich cannot do it alone, nor can any number of senators or others. This is on us to see it done, or fail and rebuild if we can.
NPR playing both-siderism is a little different from CNN or MSNBC doing the same. They're trying to be professional, but they sort of expect people to listen past the idiotic sound bites and hear the analysis that follows - whereas most news is perceived on television or print or social media as nothing but a headline sound bite. I respect their work, but am not so optimistic that audiences actually do listen past nonsense to grasp nuance...yet cannot think of a better source in America.
Familiar with Hartmann. Some good points. I prefer Reich, who has many exquisite points and attracts several of the best and the bravest of the point makers. Indeed, I gleefully quibble with him because I agree with Reich about 95% - except not here. NAFTA was an opportunity for American labor unions to learn to operate across national borders - had there not been leadership determined to put them under siege in the White House. It was a good plan. Which failed. But a better plan by miles and an altogether different thing from China's accession to the WTO - not because Mexicans are so different from Chinese, but because Americans are able to empower unions that are led by Spanish-speaking Latinos - NAFTA couldhave led to California-Mex trans-Pacific hubs (and to a modest extent,it did) - rather than a dominant Tex-Mex exploitation hub. But it comes down to the Executive, the Supreme Court, and Labor itself - and still may. Either American unions learn to unite with Mexico, or they become as obsolete as they were in the 19th century (until they reorganized in the 20th). Adapt or die - the need remains unchanged.
Prof. Reich is correct in his evaluation of NAFTA and free trade in general. It was mistaken, helped accelerate inequities, made a few rich and many poorer. There is another factor we have to throw in here: free trade also accelerates consumption, and bringing jobs back might do that too, in a time where we must contemplate "degrowth" for the sake of the planet. Degrowth and redistribution are, understandably, political losers, while "bringing jobs back" and strengthening infrastructure are political winners, explaining Biden's focus. This year is showing, with every passing climatic disaster, that simply bringing back jobs and improving our capacities will lead to steep loses if you don't also address the ecological decline smacking us in the face. Accepting the necessity of less is the hardest political choice to make, yet one essential for life on the planet. While all of us must do our parts, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, the Walton Family and the Cargill/McMillan's of the world have to do a lot more.
RR has written "..what if a country’s comparative advantage comes in allowing its workers to labor under dangerous or exploitative conditions?" I will go one further: What if a country uses cheap labor to build itself up so that it may attack other countries? This is the situation the West now finds itself in with China. Free trade--ceteris paribus--may be the best economic policy. But in the real world there is rarely "ceteris paribus".
I totally agree. Biden has turned out to be a much better President than I expected.
I agree with him on this point. I don't support anything (a party) or anyone blindly. This is good start. I agree. I was not a supporter of those policies from Clinton nor Obama. We can disagree as democrats.
NOW - if Biden would pick up that pen and cancel student loan debt. I'd volunteer to work his campaign!!
If he can be smart about this trade agreement, then he has the leadership to cancel the student loan debt.
NO ONE HERE is saying we have to follow someone “blindly.” [I suspect I am assuming, but I think I’m right], that everyone who considers our country’s future is at risk, that we need to hold the line for the Democratic Party, ALSO wants us to work within that party to make it, and all its politicians, MORE responsive to the will of the people, and to the betterment of the people.
It’s not blindly. It’s knowing which side your bread is buttered on, and then working to make the whole system better. We can’t just let the party “leadership” run things without our input and our influence!! Voting once every four years in the national election doesn’t do it! Get involved locally, be vocal, vote in mid-term elections, build the government you want. Speak up. Attend meetings with your representatives. TALK TO THEM! {Who here writes messages to the President on the whitehouse.gov site? I do!}
{Sadly, building from the grassroots is what the ultra-Right did since Reagan, and even though the Left was warned, we didn’t hold them off — and now, here they are.}
No one says stick with Biden blindly. We stay stick with Biden and make sure the Dems know which side THEIR bread is buttered on!!!!!
You get it! I write to President Biden as well as my House rep and Senators regularly. There are several things I would complain about to "Joe" and I do. But in the final analysis, he may be considered one of the most important Presidents in our history! Even if you review the things he did by executive order to reverse the madness of "45" Biden is a hero beyond compare!
There is only one thing that matters. The Earth and our children's future are in the balance. Either we get a Blue Wave Victory Trifecta in November 2024 or we are doomed as a species. The forces of MAGA make Nazis look like pikers.
Blue Wave and then work to make it even better!
Rubbish. He has got us into a War which could have been averted. He is NO different than Republicans. He is backed by big money.
Money in Politics is NOT Democracy.
Vote Green if you have any sense.
I would vote "Green" if there was ranked choice voting. It would help build support for a party focused on the Planet. But as it is, any vote not Blue is a vote for fascism.
Agree about the money. I'd go with publicly funded elections with the max donation from corporate oligarchs held to $100 or less. But I dream..
@ Bill. You clearly understand the structure of our American system. Any 3rd party vote takes away from the majority, and in this election cycle the Democrats are likely to have the majority. Therefor, don't support 3rd parties at this time!
Start with his executive orders within hours of his assumption of office. He took the oath and went work. Google it.
Why? So you can pretend they didn’t happen? You’ve been in this country … Look around you. With your eyes OPEN.
Blind is he who doesn't want to see.
Do your research!!
Following blindly is the other party.
Democrats have the opposite problem: we are critical to a fault.
If I had to choose, I think being critical to a fault is the better option though--if we could just curb that a little once the general election comes around!
Hahaha! Yes, Jeff, I agree. Just curb that a little!
Yes!
I do not think Dems. are critical at all.
I see Dems. working hard to 'prop' Biden up (this is not meant in a nasty way). I have never liked him but I suppose he is the better of 2 evils.
And this is really what separates a Democratic voter from a Republican. Democrats understand that perhaps Joe Biden may be merely the lesser of two evils. Many Republicans, however, seem to think Trump is the second coming of Christ (quite literally if you're Q Anon). It's party politics either way, but it's party politics with a difference.
I would say that our house is on fire and we better get very clear about supporting Biden in a hurry. We can continue to support progressives who push Biden's policies toward making life for working people and all vulnerable people, more manageable, cleaning up the air and water, making it more likely that more people will vote, evening the playing field, using the tools of democracy to move us forward.
Move further to the left.
Hear, hear. Yes.
Yup.
Get the DNC to be more available!
There is absolutely ZERO substance in your comment. You can be snarky and try to take some kind of victory lap for your negativity, but that’s all it is. Negativity. In your argument, there’s no “there” there.
He can't "pick up a pen and cancel student loan debt;" if he could he would. We have checks and balances in this country. Expecting a President to be able to do that is looking for a Dictator, not a President. Biden's plan got struck down by the Supreme Court - but he hasn't given up. He has a Plan B and is working on it.
You should get out and volunteer to work for his campaign NOW! Do you think any Retrumplican is going to eliminate school debt? Biden is the ONLY chance you have, so work for him so he can do it - and work for Democrats up and down the ballot so he has help in Congress to do things that will improve the quality of lives for Americans.
I don't follow anyone blindly either. But there are 2 major political parties. They have platforms which list what their priorities are. The Democrats priorities are (in part) body autonomy, equality (race, gender, age, etc.), responsible gun ownership, protecting social security, proving safety nets, having corporations and the ultra wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, aiding democracies around the world. The ReTrumplican platform as of 2020 is literally "whatever Trump says it is."
I don't blindly follow - I look at the platforms and see which one I agree more with, then I support that group.
If you don't work for Biden; if you don't work for Democrats up and down the ballot, then if the Retrumplican government seizes your home because you have outstanding student loans, or puts you in jail because you decided to choose not to be a parent, or someone you love is a victim of a mass-shooting, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
FYI - Biend is still working for you even if you aren't working for him. See below:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/27/biden-takes-on-supreme-court-by-still-trying-to-forgive-student-debt.html
The student loan forgiveness:
1. Was not enough
2. Did not fix the underlying issue
3. Did not even happen - Biden can blame Republicans all he wants but it is HIS responsibility that HIS legislation did not materialize (there’s a case to be made that he could’ve pursued it in a different way that would’ve been less likely to get blocked).
Biden is a typical establishment democrat. Promising the world and delivering nothing while blaming republicans.
Wealth inequality is still rising.
Homeless is still spiraling out of control.
The planet is still dying.
I’m tired of the only “left wing” political party in the country being impotent and incompetent.
It is not 'left' wing! It's a centrist party.
You need to read more.
Biden is NOT the one who blocked forgiveness of student debt, Janet. That was the sextet on the Supreme Court, urged by lawsuits by Republican supporters. And for your added information he (Biden) is going for a work around to help some students with the debt.
SCOTUS=6XCORRUPT
Agreed
Biden TRIED to cancel student loan debt. It’s TRUMPS appointed Judges who are BLOCKING it.
Not so sure
I’m sure he would pick up the pen if he could, unfortunately that is not a unilateral decision. The angle he’s taken at this point is still beneficial.
The foundational step that needs to be taken is to reduce the cost of education in the US.
Can you imagine going to Harvard for $6000? That was a cost of Cambridge when my friend got his masters degree.
I got my Associate's Degree in the mid 80s. I paid $450/semester. I didn't pursue my bachelor's degree at the time. I went back in the early 2000s. To get my Bachelor's degree was about $2,500/class. 15 years and a 27-fold increase! I thought it would get me a better job....it didn't.
An article in the Wall Street Journal about 30 years ago addressed the sudden rise in tuition cost. Their conclusion: colleges raise their prices because they can. It's capitalism.
You are right, and pure Capitalism is evil. It is against the tenets of every religion (except that new Prosperity theology). Unfortunately, we were taught from a young age that in order to be successful, you need to go to college and get a degree. Our parents, who could not afford college were the ones' preaching it because they believed what it could do, but then Greed stepped in. Don't get me wrong, but I don't care who you are, why does a college professor earn $300,000/year? I love Elizabeth Warren, but she was paid $429,981 as a Harvard law professor from 2010 to 2011; did she teach at at Bunker Hill Community College too, and share her expertise with poorer students? No.
I had a Sociology professor, Roland Blanchette (props to him) - He taught at a private college and the community college. He said he taught the same course to each and had the same number of As, Bs, Cs, etc.; the only difference was the ability of the student's to pay. We need more Rolands in this world!
'Pure' Capitalism is not as evil. Unfortunately, this is not Pure Capitalism! The workers, consumers, and Government (the people) have little, to no, influence. In Pure Capitalism, they would have significant influence. This system is more of a plutocracy or Autocracy, where a small number of ultra wealthy have the lions share of wealth and power and use it to gain outsized influence in their selfish (greedy) quest for even more wealth and power.
All education should be free and Universal healthcare.
Why?
Why not.
The younger people will one day become important all of them if there was free education. Why pay for a basic right.
Democrats can disagree. I think cancellation of student loan debts is one of the worst policy positions ever thought of. I would support a hardship exception to payments but outright cancellation is just pro-college kid discrimination. What about all the other good causes that are not funded because of this policy? What about all those kids that worked instead of college? I got more, but . . .
Do you know what college costs now??? One of my daughters finished bachelors and masters with nearly $60K in debt. That is with her refusing some federal help, and with scholarships offered. The other daughter (twins) was fortunate to have her college paid by her grandmother. The problem here is the cost. It's gone sky-high since I went to school, and wages haven't kept up. It's a drag on our economy in so many ways--housing, family planning, basics. SOMETHING needs to be done. States particularly (and Federal Govt) used to supplement upper education to make it more affordable.
And guess who is helping to pay off this debt using inheritance money that I as a public school teacher could never have been able to accrue???
Student loan debt ballooned when the government decided to put the programs into the hands of commercial banks, AND when interest on those loans was points higher than the prime rate for the rest of the country. Many students who worked in programs intended to bring down their debt were unfairly denied those reductions, as well.
The entire loan program became a profit center for the government, not what it was supposed to be. Students paying off their loans at legal rates based on their incomes wind up owing MORE on their loans rather than less, and some pay multiple times the amounts they actually borrowed.
Pretending it’s “unfair” to the borrowers is a cop out. Forgiving huge numbers of these loans is the ONLY fair action…
Student loan debt also ballooned when governments (state and federal) severely cut funding for public colleges and universities, thus passing the costs to students and their families. These cuts in education funding came along with increasing spending for defense and public safety, all the time cutting taxes for the rich.
Yup
I have mixed emotions about eliminating the student loan debt. On the one hand, my daughter was saddled with monumental loans that finally, together with my help, she was able to pay off. Neither she nor I will be compensated by this program. In that sense, it is unfair to those who have already paid off their loans to pay off the loans of those who haven't.
On the other hand, the high costs of college education are unfair to those in the middle and lower classes, and being a believer that education is a basic human right that should be equally accessible by all, I believe in public support the for those who cannot afford it.
It's hard for me to ignore the plight of those with massive student loan debt, but it's also hard for me to think that their debts may be absolved while those who have paid their debt are ignored - or even worse, forcing them to pay the for the debts of others with their taxes.
In the end, I think that absolving student loan debt is not the answer to the problem. Instead, we should be focusing on amending the system to make college education universally accessible to all. That will require full public support which will require taxes. As for question of who should be taxed, I adhere to the philosophy: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
You see, the principle behind what you say is, “We did it wrong to so many for so long, it is unfair to do it right for people now.” I don’t subscribe to that.
I’d love for us to find a way to give anyone some sort of tax break who has paid student loans back in the past, perhaps, thirty or forty years, to compensate them for following through. But it is the more recent loans {if memory serves, people WERE paying a good deal higher interest rates than the prime rate as fa back as the late 90s, and the government was raking in a neat profit on the backs of students who were - in my opinion - being fleeced. But i could have my dates wrong.]
As part of this whole mess, programs meant to administer these loans for the benefit of the students put them at a DISadvantage, mis-handling the work options in under-served capacities that were supposed to help people reduce their loans, mis-administering payments so principle was NOT reduced with each payment and people wound up owing more rather than less, in spite of making regular payments based on their income — please, what is “fair” is not to victimize people today because we victimized people yesterday.
This whole “it’s not fair, because I paid mine off,” is a deflection.
Just as a thought, would we keep people enslaved today because we did not free their grandparents? I know, it’s an extreme example, but the principle is not so different.
The manner in which loans have been administered is WRONG, and past students and current students have been victimized, and continuing to victimize them is WRONG.
I would be absolutely in favor of retroactively helping out the generation or two that has been victimized this way, if we can start a movement to do THAT, too.
30 or 40 years ago college didn’t cost nearly as much, especially compared to wages.
FREE
So if Biden doesn’t give you everything you want you won’t work for his reelection even though the alternative is a guy that not only won’t give you what you want but will actively take away what you have
no one have "given " me anything. Full stop. In fact, ALL (both parties and Wall Street) - mostly have stolen what I worked for.
Give me "everything". Well, this is a comment section and we don't know each other. I don't think to say that I am "demanding everything" for a vote is appropriate.
There are plenty of people to vote for...
Really? Mentioning three worthy of vote.
(Besides Biden)
Cornel West.
THANK YOU!💝
But he is still a warmonger and advocate for Wall Street. He will sign no laws that will curb the profits of his corporate masters (not that Congress would ever pass any to him).
Why is he a warmonger? Are we currently sending anything but money and supplies to another struggling democracy trying to stave off a land grab by a powerful dictator? It seems he's trying to do everything he can NOT to send troops oversees again.
If he were not a warmonger, he would actively be seeking peace in Ukraine instead of pouring gasoline on the fire by shipping ever more deadly weapons.
Increasing the number of deadly weapons in any environment only increases the slaughter. Americans should be painfully aware of that.
You can't seek a peace with a country who wants to absorb the other country. Russia want to make Ukraine part of Russia. Where's the room for compromise?
You are totally disregarding the fact that the war in Ukraine is a civil war between east and west Ukraine and that the people of eastern Ukraine declared their independence from Kiev after the Maidan Revolution in 2014 that was fostered and supported by the U.S.
You are also totally discounting the wishes of the people of the Donbass and Crimea who wanted no part of the government installed by the U.S.
I am not on Russia's side nor am I on our side. I am on the side of the people of the Donbass and Crimea who expressed their wish to be independent of what they considered an oppressive government in Kiev. They should be allowed to speak for themselves and they should be allowed to determine how and by whom they should be governed.
And we should push for a truce with time sufficient for them to speak their piece. And then all parties should honor their wishes.
You may think that peace is not possible because you believe Putin to be an evil person. But you don't know that and you can't know that until you give it a chance.
It is also possible that you simply do not want peace. You would not be alone in our country.
Ludicrously untrue. Do you remember what happens when someone tries to appease a despot? You get a despot who has been emboldened to be even worse…
Like beauty, despotism is in the eye of the beholder. Were the Soviets not despots when they planted offensive missiles in Cuba? (I'm sure you will agree they were.) So are the NATO countries not despots when they plant missiles on Russia's border?
So explain to me why Russians are despots and Americans, who can invade other countries at will, and for no valid reason (e.g., Iraq), are not despots.
Also, please explain why Russia's response to missiles on their border is evil when our response to the Soviet missiles in Cuba was patriotic - bearing in mind that, had it not been for the discretion of the Soviets, we would have started WWIII.
The U.S. has started wars with far less provocation than that for which the Russians invaded Ukraine last year, yet the Russians are despots while we are great saviors spreading democracy.
After a careful examination of your own behavior, it's not hard to see the similarity between your behavior and that of others. That should be a lesson. And as the old proverb goes, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
Not to mention cluster bombs!
where are you getting these talking points? Do you not believe President Biden wants to provide laws and support to build from the middle out?
wrknight- Not in the least, no. He is the most progressive DEM Prez we have seen in 60 years. Was NOT a Biden fan when he was first elected, but pleasantly surprised at his directions, directives and policies. He's quietly following the ideals of FDR'S New Deal that created and sustained the middle-class until those policies were reversed by the corporate-owned GOP. As a Dem I am pleased and look forward to voting for him again.
I agree that Biden is the most progressive president in 60 years, but progressive is relative. So, yes, relative to all the presidents of the last 60 years, he is indeed the most progressive. But you can't begin to compare him to FDR. FDR believed that to bring about prosperity for all Americans, the rich had to contribute. And he acted on that by imposing very high taxes on extreme incomes and taxes on luxury items that only the rich could afford. Biden, on the other hand, does nothing to curb the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. He does nothing to curb the acquisitions, mergers and stock buy-backs of mega-corporations forming monopolies. He has not strengthened the enforcement powers of the EPA, OSHA, SEC or other regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect us from corporate greed. But the war department continues to get more and more money - and who is going to pay for it.
None of Biden's progressive programs have cost corporate America one cent. In fact, corporate America is profiting from them as the money is paid first to businesses under contract to perform the services and after they take their cut, the remainder trickles down to workers. (It doesn't go directly to you or me.) Secondly, the money needed for his progressive programs is being borrowed from the wealthy, from corporations and from other governments, to be paid back with interest by future taxpayers. If you don't believe this, simply look at the debt clock which is accelerating daily and ask yourselves, who is getting that money and who is going to pay it back. (Follow the money.)
Back in FDR's time, Republicans accused Democrats of 'tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend". Today, it's "borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend", so tomorrow, we'll get the money back with interest. It's win-win for those with lots of money they don't otherwise know what to do with.
Like I said, progressive is relative.
wrknight,
In Inflation Reduction Act, Biden is reducing deficits, primarily via new taxes on large corporations in the form of a minimum tax on financial income (book income), a stock buyback tax, and an excise tax on drug companies that enables the government to control drug prices. We have a new minimum 15% tax on corporate book income for corporations with profits over $1 billion. Biden has proposed to Congress raising the corporate income tax to 28%. He's proposing taxing capital gains at the new top marginal income tax rate of 39.6 % (plus the 5% NIIT) for taxpayers whose income exceeds $1 million.
The Inflation Reduction Act put a 1% excise tax on the total value of stock repurchases or “stock buybacks.” Biden's current budget proposes quadrupling the new tax on buybacks to 4%. His current budget also proposes a “billionaire” minimum tax. The budget proposes a new minimum tax of 25% on income and unrealized capital gains for “the wealthiest 0.01 percent.”
He hasn't strengthened enforcement powers because the Supreme Court just ruled that agencies don't have authority to create regulations or enforce them (see Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency). CONGRESS must give the authority to the agencies - it's not within the President's powers.
A 1% excise tax on "certain repurchases" of stock. The deficit may decrease this year because the economy is still recovering. So it will be hard to tell just how much those taxes reduce the deficit. We'll know more by the end of the year.
As for the regulatory agencies, just how hard has he pushed Congress to give them the needed authority? I have a vivid recollection of FDR using the bully pulpit to get things accomplished that Republicans didn't like, but I haven't seen Biden being very aggressive in that arena.
Yes I do think that Biden's Policy is warmongering.
Not only the billions of dollars to the military but also setting up bases around China.
So you think that student loan debt is a bigger priority than animal agriculture, our planet literally being on fire, childhood poverty, the wage vs cost of living gap getting bigger by the day, inequality, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, gun control, etc? Coming from a Progressive, I can tell you that Biden, a corporate dem, doesn't care about anything I just listed. You might as well forget about that student loan debt. And if that does get paid off, then I want my big fat check for not adding any more humans to this horrific world. But I'm not holding my breath.
YES! I do - I'm not apologizing for it. The Dems have had decades of drinking at the trough of Wall STreet.
If they can't even do one thing for students - which would help ALL of the above. Then they have become useless.
Anyone else reading the Debt Collective just launched a new tool - petition for debt relief - stand up for our rights.
Take your meds! The delusions are back!
I propose that if school debt can't be forgiven then the Government should at least eliminate interest and late fees, so people are only paying back what they borrowed.
The problem is the people that are supporting Trump don’t know it. His accomplishments need to be broadcast.
MTG did an excellent summary for him.
True! Too stupid to realize what she was doing!
Lol you’re funny. I love satire.
Your satire meter needs recalibrating.
Not as much as your judgment of Biden. x
So you oppose the investments in our domestic manufacturing? CHIPS?
Please don’t engage with the trolls. (And J-Pat is clearly a troll.)
Why do you say that? It’s a Straw man. You actually think Biden is responsible for those policies? or ANY policy making? or ANY other decisions? He can’t finish a sentence or remember where he is most of the time.
That's utter nonsense. While Biden lacks the eloquence of Obama or some other leading Democrats, he is not only clearly in full command of his faculties, he has shown himself to be an excellent leader who has outfoxed the Republicans on numerous occasions. The attempts to make him out to be a doddering old fool are right-wing conspiracy theorist BS.
Actually, he was. Legislation has the appearance and consistency of sausage when made....Biden was personally involved in the negotiations. He answers hard questions put to him by hostile reporters all the time. I'm close to his age. Didn't think he could. But he does.
Sounds like you have actual malice disease. Maybe he should sue your ass for defamation.
Well, if the right-wing claim that someone else is making all the decisions for Biden -- rumor has it that it's Obama -- is true, whoever it is has been doing a splendid job on the economy, repeatedly exceeding expectations.
J-Pat ; Sounds like a republican talking point.
As a retired school teacher, J-Pat, what I can say about this comment is that you get an "F" for not doing your homework.
J- Pat ; B.S. : Biden supports workers and unions.
This one thinks Biden is in the same bad shape Ronnie Reagan was in at the end of Saint Reagan’s term in office. But Biden has never mistaken a movie scene for an actual event in war, and he does NOT sleep away his afternoons, nor is he incapable of speaking off-the-cuff.
And Biden is far more in control of his administration than Dubya was. We did not have to spread rumors about Cheney taking that over. it was right out in the open. Dubya just let him do it.
I am reluctant to point out that we have had an incompetent president in the past [both Republicans] — one who was half-asleep and one who let his Vice-President run the office for whatever reason — but other than being old, and other than Republicans keeping up the drumbeat that’s he’s antiquated, we have little reason to mistrust that Biden is in charge and mentally up to the job. He speaks slowly but cogently, and he speaks on topic and substantively in public.
This guy here is buying what the Repubs are shoveling out. Sad, but that tactic does seem to work on some types of people.
OMG! J.Pat, really! You think Biden is incapable of knowing what he is doing? He is older, yes, but he is totally present. The agism spouted by so many these days is really sad, but against older and younger people, as though middle-aged white men are the only ones who know and can do anything. What is that but agism! If you want to look at an older person who is making little or no sense and can't keep a sentence going that is not an oft repeated one, look at Donald Trump who is made out to be so much younger than Biden but is really less than 4 years younger and a whole lot less capable. We need to be encouraging more young people to step up and run for office all over the country at every level, but people who actually care about this nation, not just what they can get for themselves from being in office.
Screw you. As a child of a stutterer, I can tell you that his hesitancy in words, pausing mid sentence, and seemingly mumbling are all parts of the stuttering. He stops talking so he doesn't stutter; he mumbles are an attempt to slow the stutter. It breaks my hart to hear people make fun of him because of byproducts of a stutter.
And yes, the man's foot got caught in the toe clip on his bike pedal and he fell over. Yes, he tripped over a sandbag at the AirForce Graduation, but if he were so frail, he would have broken a hip or a shoulder or a rib - he's in shape because none of that happened!
😡
J-Pat : Then stay in England, or wherever you are. What skin do you have in this anyway?
J-Pat Don't allow the perfect to be an enemy of the good. Besides Who could be replacing him at this moment? You are not exactly a local, are you? Who would be a better president for the USA?
I am a U.S. citizen, i currently live and work in the U.K. but still get to vote.
Once upon a time Bernie Sanders was the best candidate, however now in my opinion federal electoral politics is broken, badly flawed, corrupt and no longer works for the working class or average americans. The voting system has to change so that the popular vote winner wins the election, you know… like a democracy. Money has to come out of politics : no big donors or professional lobbyists, no dealing in stock and shares, etc.
The ballot system has to change to make it easier, or even realistically possible, for third parties. The current duopoly is not fit for purpose.
As for who; if i was forced to pick, from a weak field, Cornell West is way better on every subject that all the others.
Bernie is older than Joe.
Cornel West.
Are you a neocon or a neolib?
A Leftist. A real Leftist, not the faux-left or boutique left like “The Squad” of sell-outs or Bernie “My friend Joe Biden” Sanders.
@ J-Pat. If you’re leftist you should have a grip on structuralism? You wouldn’t be so down on Biden perhaps if you understand that the triple institutions of two-party system, primary system of choosing candidates and the Electoral College together mean you can’t get a Biden alternative to win the office. Demeaning Biden only increases the chances of another Republican president getting in!
In that case, I think you're making Perfect the enemy of Better.
A "real leftist" Like Stalin?
President Biden: is at least, not a Fascist. Compared to Bernie, you sound like one J-Pat.
I've been saying this for years.
The only thing a hard right facists trump movement in this country will do is wake up the hard left, a sleeping giant.
But it will push the pendulum back to the left. Watch out MAGA.
Just sound like another malcontent with an axe to grind.
Troll
moderator please......
Now I KNOW he is a Putin troll, since supporting his candidate will help GUARANTEE that we get SCUMp back into power, FOR LIFE this time, and an effing 100 year + reign of abject fascism and (political, racial, ideological) genocide (IF we even last that long due to the torrid environment :( ).
HOW TF does one 'backlash' against THAT?!?!
You don't love American workers, it seems
Are you a troll?
Yawn. Why are you even here? If you call anyone who makes your cognitive dissonance kick in “a Troll”, what’s the point of you being in this debating space?
Yes. It's hard to have a different opinion on here. Mostly short-sighted Dems.
We could do a lot worse with tfg.
I believed Biden was and is and will be a great president!
He has has “gaps in understanding,” but I give him a lot of credit for the fact that he sometimes - increasingly often these days - tries to grab his courage and his compassion, and take the leap into a healthy future for all.
At least he seems willing to try to learn.
Really? So you subscribe completely with his Ukraine policy?
Why not?
Another neoliberal like Clinton and Obama.
Big Steel, AT&T, some auto firms have knelt. Back in the pre-Reagan days. Price gouging is best dealt with passively through taxes, both on personal and corporate levels. There used to be muti-tiered corporate tax levels, retained earnings caps, caps on deductions for executive salaries (enter the unethical stock options scheme); a $250K 'cap' on personal income (70+% on everything over that, 92% right after WWII). The country grew, the middle class was created and grew, social programs were created to deal with the remaining issues. Then the Reagan revolution started to dismantle it all, with a (n unsustainable) drop to 28%. Now who even pays that? Average man or woman pays 15+% in payroll taxes right iff the top to begin with, more that the fat cats and corporations pay. We need to return to high marginal tax rates as a way of protecting our fellow Americans from the greed, corruption and brutality of the 1 percenters. Fighting in the streets won't do it. Dismantling gerrymandering and voting for progressive candidates will. Relying once again on the rule of law would certainty help. It's up to us, not our government, to do, for our elected government should reflect our beliefs and ability to thrive, not just exist. For all of us.
Art - I would also like to see more competition as that takes care of the price gouging behavior.
and also incentivises corporations to invest in R & D and sharing with more of their stakeholders than just their shareholders, many of whom are in for the short ride before selling off anyway.
Agree with your points Art, but this started under Carter, and Reagan massively accelerated it. Let’s not pretend Democrats are not knee deep in corruption as well.
What started under Carter?
Carter began the era of neoliberalism.
Yeah, I kind of agree on a near-term basis. But I was involved in protests during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and things really did change for the better. But the Nixon-Reagan crowd of crooks upped the anti with the huge tax cuts of 81-86, getting a pass on Iran-Contra; Clinton, OKing repeal of Glass-Steagall and turning banking into a casino - bye bye savings accounts - seeking popularity by courting Gingrich (left with a surplus but at whose expense?); W's batshit crazy 8 years (tho I think he sensed the strings manipulating him late in his 2nd term); the reticence of Obama to use his political instead of oratorical power to rally us to the cause, so evident during the very first days of his administration. The bad news is that it looks like we're done for. But the good news is all these things have acted like a vacuum forming machine, forcing the irregular features into sharp relief so there is no longer any place to hide, we can see the exact locations and connections of those who enslave us. And there's way more of us than there are of them. To level the playing field we need to elect smart local progressives, end gerrymandering, elect smart federal progressives, fix the tax laws, eliminate the dollar as a valid currency (to disable the bad guys), give everyone an equal, substantial amount of the new currency. Start over. The tax laws will help to maintain some sort of equality, mainly by new products, processes, markets and, oh yeah, jobs! Every citizen should be required by law to serve at least one year in local and federal government, to understand its importance and necessity. Ooops, I must have dozed off. Did I say anything when I was asleep?
"involved in protests during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and things really did change for the better"...
At the end of the 60s, other things started to go the other way where the big winners were the capitalists, and tax laws and many others were written to take money from the general public and gifted to those same capitalists. Even if we, the 99.9%, get back to where we were with the share of the economy, we are still starting from a lower position and really should get that money back (which won't happen)!
100%. Something I never hear is how all the I’ll gotten gains should be taken away and redistributed, then we can reimplement sound public policy surrounding taxes, etc.
What we should all remember is that Corporations are the functional arms of global capitalism. Trump knows this but his base does not. What they need to realize is that every time a corporation exports a good job to a person in a low-labor-cost venue overseas, they effectively import a bad job (or no job) into one of our heartland communities. Of course Trump and his wannabe contenders blame it all on people coming here. Immigrants! Get real folks - it's not the people coming here that are taking away jobs! It's the jobs being taken away by corporations! Trump is pushing the cover story that blinds his base to their reality. He is just twisting the real legitimate resentment they feel to take the blame away from the real cause of hollowing out American jobs. He is hiding the fact that his base are being taken to the cleaners by the same people they are voting into power!
Oh my goodness!! That was so well said! It explains everything! The sad part is those people that are blindly following Mr. Trump will not listen to this argument. They simply will not realize that they have been duped!!
Won't admit they have been duped. Trump is running the same con that his base has fallen for for years, only as a foolproof investment scam, a megachurch promising heaven for donations, or a catfish/prince charming lovebombing.
@Peggy. Many of them won't admit they have been had. But happily quite a few former Trump voters are "over it" and looking for alternatives. Also happily, one alternative is to not vote at all. I don't want to sound anti-democratic, but I am reminded of the grandmother who told the precinct worker that she knew all about the election but was not going to vote anyway. When asked why she said, "It only encourages them..."
You imply Inmate No. P01135809's followers are rational, Peggy Freeman? I don't thimk so.
They don't even know what being duped means. 🤦
I bought it!
DJT: King of the Yahoos, in the kingdom of Id.
Oh, the irony!
And yet, this essay we are all commenting on is about how it's a good thing (finally something I can agree with) that Biden is moving to reverse these globalization policies pushed by Clinton and Obama and somehow it's still all DJT's fault!
@Rhonda. Careful how you describe the political debate. No one is saying that globalization is Trump's fault (except for his pro-dictator policies). I have to say there is some substance to your critique of Clinton AND Obama could have done more to reverse. BUT the point is, Biden is moving to square things up. So, bemoan the past? Or look what we might be able to improve? Biden is on the "improve" track.
Completely agreed. The most tragic part is that no amount of reasoning, or evidence can ever convince his base otherwise.
I can’t help but notice that the younger generations, which were not subjected to a perpetual barrage of red scare propaganda, are capable of acknowledging that for-profit businesses are capable of doing evil.
The older Trump supporters grew up with the nonstop red scare nonsense. And as a result, cannot fathom a world in which capitalism is failing on its own. This is why they’re obsessed with finding a conspiracy that’s destroying capitalism from within. Of course, it has to be because of the government, the globalists, etc.
Many of my family members have fallen for this nonsense, and there is simply no convincing them.
The similarities to Weimar Germany are uncanny, and I cannot believe that the American right fails to see the similarities.
I maintain hope that we can reach the younger generations before the corporate propaganda machine gets them too.
Benjamin:
As a former manufacturing consultant and someone who has worked in manufacturing, there are three components to it. Materials, Overhead, and Direct Labor going into the costs of part, product, etc. The percentages vary with Direct Labor being the smallest percentage. So what gives?
Material costs will be similar. US Overhead comes with a lot of inputs (EPA, OSHA, OT laws, sick time, municipal and state taxes, SS, healthcare insurance, etc. [there are more]). Direct Labor is the smallest percentage of those three factors. You cut Labor and much of the largest factor disappears. You move to Thailand, Philippines, China, Malaysia, etc., its lower Overhead and Direct Labor cost. That is the quick snapshot look.
@Bill. Clearly you can do a P&L. But I might have missed my point. Typical car manufacturer makes 16% to 19% gross margin. Labor costs are typically 16% (varies by manufacturer). If by manufacturing offshore labor can be reduced to (say for example) 12% the gross profit range goes up to between 20% and 23%. This boost in margin is what is driving manufactures to set up in "low labor cost" venues. When you add tax incentives that some countries provide in order to attract manufacturers you end up with a lot of American jobs in manufacturing lost and a lot of people in (formerly low labor cost communities in the USA) unemployed or under-employed. This breeds a lot of resentment. The point of my post was to point out that wealthy oligarchs are doing two things - they are the principal drivers of offshoring jobs AND they are the principal financiers of right wing demagogues feeding off of the natural resentment of people. These same robber barons and fat cats are exploiting that resentment by financing media outlets that blame lost jobs on immigrants and people of color thus distracting the public from seeing the real culprits. Forgive me if this sounds like preaching to the choir - I'm just trying to be clear on what I was trying to get across in my post. I was not talking about accounting - I was talking about the irony of fat cats both taking conservative voters to the cleaners by offshoring their jobs AND taking them to the cleaners again by financing greedy autocratic demagogues.
Ben:
I am in agreement with you. When I was with Ingersoll Engineers a galaxy far away and light years in the past, we found similar. Yes, corporate oligarchs are the principal instigators here. And yes a lot of jobs are lost. And yes people are picking on the wrong scapegoat.
Not an accountant, but, I still had to know this. And I was talking about my 40-something years in supply chain, manufacturing, planning, and consulting. Not disputing and hoping you would say more to educate people what the issues are and why the oligarchs are doing it.
Thank you.
The Democrats need to sell the strong policies that benefit citizens. The Republicans have no policies, just the vortex of hatred and negativity .
I like that idea of a vortex. Maybe you should add greed.
The vortex of hatred and negativity will win the day because that is the mind of half of America!
Joe Biden has five portraits directly across from his Resolute desk in the Oval Office.
The largest and central portrait is of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who for most of his presidency knew he was dying and rose to greatness anyway.
Joe humbly sees the greatness he can bring to America, through his swansong, his last great work on earth.
Godspeed, beautiful Joe.❤️
http://www.actblue.com
Maybe it was his 'known to be dying part' that made President Roosevelt so humane. Also, his chronic illness experience and his strong humanity response to it..
Yes, Vicki, I think FDR listened with his heart, and Joe Biden does, also.
FDR had Frances Perkins to guide him.
And John Maynard Keynes. Perkins was extraordinary.
And Eleanor!
But Joe doesn't throw black, Hispanic, and Asian people under the bus like FDR did.
That perhaps and he had Eleanor in his ear. She was an absolute force when she wanted to be.
It takes a village called democracy; each of us "sees thru a glass darkly."
'
Actually, it was Eleanor who brought his attention to the poverty and the suffering and taught him to be humane.
Yes, just IMAGINE how these effing rightwingnut NAZIS would have gone after FDR if he was around TODAY!!
Their SHITler would be mocking him for his illness, and the rest would be calling him a commie pinko socialist, and trying (in vain) to assassinate his character.
I’d feel even better if he had Eleanor Roosevelt’s portrait.
The pictures
https://gyazo.com/fc86916486f1105007cb77f4a2218c6c
So globalization was great for America's fat cats and China, but lousy for American workers. How frustrating is that! Trying to do the right thing, we did the wrong thing.
I bought into the sales pitches for globalization from both sides of the political aisle, especially Al Gore's; he's a leader that I trusted implicitly. In retrospect, it looks like he was right about global warming and wrong about globalization, proving for me, in a most embarrassing, gut-wrenching way, that you need to deeply evaluate each issue on its own merits and that no leader, despite his or her intelligence and experience, gets everything right all the time. Which makes the weight we carry as informed, involved citizens that much heavier. (I'm already overwhelmed, just with the firehose of outrages originating from and sustained by Trump and his MAGA Republicans, too numerous to name here.)
James Muncy ' The 'cultural chaos' driven by the right wing owned media is intended to overwhelm informed, involved citizens along with those who are just trying to survive. The distractions keep US from zeroing in on the obscenely wealthy billionaires who suck all the wealth up, and use it to buy our government, including the Supreme court, and legions of crooked lawyers to interpret the laws in an attempt to buy time and outwit justice itself. The good news is that they are about to lose.
I lived outside Toledo, Ohio when NAFTA was being debated, then passed. Marcy Kaptur, Toledo area's congressional representative lobbied vehemently against NAFTA because she knew how it would hurt her constituents. Toledo is a rust belt manufacturing city. She was right. Protecting corporations does not protect ordinary Americans and their families. Families need protection, not the morbidly rich, who hoard the financial resources.
One need only bike tour the Bernie Sanders and Elise Stefanik sides of Lake Champlain to see this stark contrast. Plattsburgh bought the one big corporation's line and tanked when they left, and Vermont diversified its economy to serve its people.
MamaSelkie, great comment!
You can also use Google Street view for the two cities for comparisons.
JennSH-- I love that phrase “morbidly rIch”! It brings to mind a crane that need to lift the weight of these greedy entities off the shoulders of the American people.
Hartmann is well-known, & Reich has been speaking out for decades. They're my 2 favorites!
Holy Toledo! I'm a huge Marcy K FAN.
Did Toledo's rust belt predate NAFTA?
Did Mexican laborers steal Toledo jobs - or did Chinese laborers do so? These are not the same thing.
A labor union in Toledo can work with a labor union in Canada or in Mexico against an automaker - just as unions in Ohio had to learn to unite with workers in Michigan - and just as unions themselves had to learn to unite Black, White, and other workers despite every complex division (while containing Communist agents on the one hand and corporate agents on the other).
But not with China.
And that's the problem of the rust belt - the possibility of collaborating with others on the continent in countries with reasonable laws was crushed when the "low hanging fruit" from China became available. Workers will need to develop means of uniting across national borders (and across language barriers) with techniques comparable to those developed to navigate interstate borders. But it can only work when a legal system is representative.
Definitely 👍, Ms Kaptur was correct.
You know the difference between Democrats and Republicans? You just showed everyone. We can always admit when we are wrong. Yes, we make mistakes; however, we admit them (most of us!) and vow to learn from them and do better. I salute you, Sir. I was wrong too and oh how I wish we had not accepted globalization!
Peggy Freeman : Globalization was an offer we could not refuse. With our right wing media machine owned by the wealthy. We have true election interference. With the 'Electoral College' , and so many other drags on voting rights like gerrymandering, and even imposters, like George Santos, who was installed by dirty money. His Republican constituents did not appreciate being tricked, I'm guessing. Dirty money screws both sides. If only they could see it. Maybe some are blue now....
Doris Kearns Goodwin has called for Campaign Finance Reform
Agree! BTW, how is the Federal Investigation going into Santos? I expected him to be charged by now & thrown out of Congress.
We expected the same of Gaetz, & how did that go?
You haven't met any rabid Hillary fans, I see!
Actually, I don’t know any rabid Hillary fans. I held my nose to vote for her. Many decent people did the same. Rumors were that “it was her time” and who ever thought TFG could get elected?
When greed stepped in, everything else went out the door!
I can’t agree more! Ever since Sam Walton abandoned “made in America” and chased more and cheaper products from China, along with NAFTA and Corporations leaving the country for less regulation and cheap labor, I’ve been screaming that out global race for cheaper goods was a race to our economic undoing! Not protecting our workers, their safety, pay and healthcare by demanding China and other nations adopt higher worker standards meant to compete, we’d have to adopt their lower standards! A race to the bottom instead of lifting up the world’s exploited workforce to US and European standards! Plus, we could’ve competed on making a uality, long lasting products instead of cheap, disposable products that’ve contributed to the global waste and quick reduction of resources! Better products & worker protections means higher cost but a higher standard of living for all. Just not as much profit for the overly greedy corporate stockholders or executive bonuses who buy politicians. There in lies the rub. Vote for Progressive Dem’s and maybe things can finally change.
Nuki Mo--So glad you brought up the point about lowering our country’s labor standards to compete. Once upon a time one of the criteria for a job search was better paid benefits--whoops, where’d they go?
Corporate Greed over the best interests of the USA. And we’re dang close to losing it all! Bring our jobs back here! Let us all prosper!
I would suggest it’s not so much corporate greed these days, but majority shareholder greed. In 1980, the majority shareholder class celebrated & supported 1) Milton Friedman’s “shareholder economy” theory (sold to the public as the new “free market economy”) which posited that publicly traded corporations must prioritize the majority shareholders interests in all decisions - which could be simply summarized as more money for the investor, less money for everyone else
(fyi - Adam Smith (1776) warned that when investors are getting a bigger and bigger share of income - which means everyone else’s share is less- conflicting “interests of those live by profit & the general interest of the society”), society is in decline. No wonder he also argued that Corporations should not be allowed to exist, as they would use their financial advantage to pay off legislators to pass laws that served the corporate interests and to eliminate competition however they could, while keeping wages low and prices high. (Wealth of Nations, Book one, chapter XL & X (conclusion), respectfully)
It was also around 1980 that we began seeing what I can only describe as a major PR effort to convince Americans that the “Rich and Famous” are not only to be admired, but also their lifestyles to be envied, if not emulated (in contrast to the long history of middle-America’s distrust, if not revulsion, of those who flaunted their wealth).
It was also in the 1980s that we were introduced to the Federalist Society and their “Constitutional Originalism”. Today, the darling of the Republican Party, Federalist Judges have been good friends to the investor class and corporations that make them exponentially more wealthy each decade.
Lots more happened since the 1980s that has brought us to this moment where some of us are seriously worried about the future of America’s unique experiment in Democracy, as well as the founding principles of absolute and universal human rights, possible only in the absence of the arbitrary abuse of power & tyranny. And while I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, I do believe that the investor class - in service to their addiction to MORE - more $, more power - have played an instrumental role in the growing assault on Freedom and liberty. (Aristotle called this addiction Pleonexia, the effort to acquire more power/status via any means necessary; see also Dr Carrie-Ann Biondi, assistant professor of philosophy at Marymount Manhattan)
Such a great post, Bob! The strategy to denigrate Biden is so overwhelming and follows the Benghazi and email server lies about Hilary Clinton but articles from experts and good people like you counter those lies. More please🙏🏻
I can't think of a modern economist who has been more consistently wrong than Larry Summers. Any position he takes I immediately treat with suspicion & doubt.
I remember when he tried to "rule" Harvard. Lol.
He was at Harvard when he made the statement about women not being good at math or economics. Lots of push back which was well deserved.
I worked there at the time. He also tried to take away a federal grant from a young female researcher and hand it to a crony ... and the CDC told him no. It was the last straw. Arrogant and clueless. I'm amazed that he didn't end up in Trump administration.
"The age-old economic doctrine of comparative advantage assumes that more trade is good for all nations because each trading partner specializes in what it does best."
This is one of the few things Adam Smith got wrong. It was brilliant in 1776, when trade between comparable economies (like England and France) was restricted by tariffs. The famous example was the thought experiment of the irrationality of making wine in Scotland and whiskey in France. By doing what each country did best, products could be exchanged to the benefit of everyone.
However, the thought experiment does not apply when free trade is between a rich, highly-regulated, economy and a poor, unregulated economy. Then you get what Ross Perot called "a giant sucking sound." He happened to be right.
And you are also right, NAFTA led directly to Trump. But you missed out one of the beneficiaries: the six wealthiest families in Spain.
Adam Smith actually did not create the doctrine of comparative advantage: he created the doctrine of absolute advantage, which is similar but slightly different. Comparative advantage was created by David Ricardo.
Smith was actually not an ardent free trader: he noted some significant benefits of trade such as getting products at a lower cost, a greater division of labor due to larger markets, and economies of scale in production, but he also noted that there were reasons to prefer supporting domestic industry over foreign industry. It was Ricardo who turned free trade into a religion among the intellectual elite. This is ironic, because Ricardo's argument for free trade is far flimsier than Smith's arguments. Comparative advantage only works in a world with two countries, two commodities, and decreasing returns to scale (meaning that the cost of production increases as production increases). It also only works if capital is not allowed to move across national borders and if the economy is at full employment. If any of those assumptions are dropped, comparative advantage collapses.
Indeed, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage (Principles, Chapter VII) depends crucially on the assumption of immobility of capital. (Decreasing returns to scale are the normal state of affairs in a mature market. "Two countries, two commodities" are not assumptions, only simplifications for the purpose of constructing the example. ) Someone once mentioned to me that modern theory has overcome that assumption but I could not trace the reference he gave. Until proven otherwise, in today's economy comparative advantage in trade is bunk.
If you drop the simplification of two countries and two commodities, the argument that free trade will benefit all countries falls apart though. For example, if there are three countries and three commodities, it is possible that one country will not have a comparative advantage in any commodity. In that case, the country will import everything it consumes and all of its domestic industry will shut down, which will obviously leave the country worse off (unless one makes the insane assumption that economies always trend to full employment and that new industries will just magically pop into existence, an assumption which is too stupid to refute). As Erik Reinert says, inefficient industry is better than no industry at all.
It is ironic that the advocates for free trade use an argument which depends on assuming immobility of capital. They will immediately turn around and advocate for deregulation of capital flows, which invalidates their argument for free trade.
Well, sure, but that "three countries" problem is avoided if one sets some not unreasonable boundary conditions. Every country is good at something!
Even Prof Reich is not claiming that comparative advantage is bunk as I read him - but rather, it's just a partial account.
It's not good enough for two countries to both obtain comparative advantage of the benefits are concentrated for a tiny group, while the costs are born in very unfair ways.
I think that's a fair analysis - as long as we acknowledge other possible benefits of comparative advantage that are likely to be taken for granted. For example, the absence of massive world wars is a substantial advantage of a "fair" trading regime (on with relatively low tariffs) - tariffs are routinely factors lurking behind the scenes in wars, imperialism, and much of the world's ugliest mischief.
Now, will Chinese billionaires collaborate with American billionaires to avoid warfare between the two superpowers? How durable is that? My expectation...is that it would be far better if an American middle class interacted with a Chinese middle class (as well as middle classes in Mexico etc) - the same way American auto workers "compete" with Germans, Brits, and Japanese. Comparative advantage could play a role in building such a world - but not if liars and cheats like Trump can tell people who "won" that they are losers, and tell losers that they are winners...
The idea of comparative advantage in trade has entered the sphere of received wisdom. I'll let RR speak for himself on whether he continues to believe in it. Of course there are advantages to be gained from trading among nations, as you point out, some of which go well beyond trade itself. The point is that the specific economic theory of comparative advantage is, as far as I can determine, bunk because one of its critical assumptions -- the immobility of capital -- no longer holds. (Another of Ricardo's assumptions, of course, was the immobility of labour, but that one still largely holds: There is labour mobility across nations, but only at the margin. The vast majority of the labour force stays put.)
As BA has pointed out, Adam Smith had a much more nuanced view of the advantages of trade. For some reason, Ricardo's theory has lingered in the public consciousness, even though a key assumption of his theory is no longer valid.
I may be wrong - it's been decades since I studied Ricardo - but I thought he accepted a view of ships as capital (not just the manufacture of vessels, but capital itself). My recollection was that other, later economists shrugged aside trivial details like imperfect knowledge, transportation costs, etc in order to make beautiful models that do not actually describe the real world. Please correct if I'm wrong.
I think the received wisdom isn't necessarily a lie - just such a tiny piece of the story that nuances will get deliberately obscured by politics. NAFTA enforced with real law that wasn't simultaneously striving to dismantle American labor and treat corporations as citizens COULD have yielded very different outcomes of the US president in 2001 actually liked labor unions. He didn't. So free trade was abused.
But those sorts of abuses are my memory of Ricardo's thesis - local people taking received wisdom of the day to abuse and exploit others as if that was "Capitalism." It wasn't. They just erred (or rather, they may have lied when selling errors proved lucrative).
Excellent. My admiration for Smith is restored.
David Ricardo didn't turn "free trade" into a religion - British capitalists distorted Ricardo to justify opium sales to China and imperialist practices pretty much everywhere else.
Ricardo's insights were pretty powerful - not anywhere near as simplistic as assuming two countries and two products. What he missed was political economics - the possibility that someone might profit more by monopolizing a good from another country, even if that increased the price to such an extent it left almost everybody worse off. Yet that's exactly what imperialism prefers - starve the Irish or the Indians - not because it makes anyone better off, but because in the face of starvation, a small powerful group can extract great rewards (in India) or externalize the costs of ridiculous mistakes.
NAFTA contributed to Trump. You leave out all the Republican polices and activities. And the whole Dubya debacle of an administration [after he was out-to-lunch in the run-up to 9-11, and people grew afraid of further attacks, and we turned to invading Iraq and the Patriot Act and all kinds of hope for a Strong Man to protect us!!] — egad, people, think of human psychology, not just abstract politics. Yeah, NAFTA and the WTO helped us send our jobs to countries with cheap [sometimes de facto slave] labor, but it’s how the Republicans played people’s reactions to that — blame loss of jobs or lousy pay on immigrants, for instance — and put our whole country into chaos with Iraq and Afghanistan and the banking debacle of 2008 {the bailout of which was set up under Dubya, but delivered to Obama to oversee, with nothing available for homeowners! — kind of the way Trump set up the withdrawal from Afghanistan, left the government out of it, and delivered it to Biden to oversee} — that sort of thing and more emotional and religious shenanigans — is what moved us to Trump. Engineering the chaos in our society and taking advantage at every opportunity {see the actions of Mitch McConnell} is what delivered us to Trump
What do we do NOW? {NOT blow it all up!!}
We could have a long argument about whether free trade works or not and about what conditions are necessary for it to work. What we know for sure is that the trade that has occurred between the US and China has never been free trade. America practiced free trade while China practiced overt trade protectionism. It's like America took a knife to a gun fight. Our politicians sold us down the river for the benefit of the large multinational corporations who bankrolled their re-election campaigns.
Michael Hutchinson: who are they? “But you missed out one of the beneficiaries: the six wealthiest families in Spain.”
I completely agree. You forgot to mention the devastating impact NAFTA had on Mexican farmers. Many of them were wiped out. In many ways, the Clinton administration was a disaster. You were one of the exceptions.
professor reich: finally, some good news from the biden administration, especially after biden recently approved the Willow oil drilling project, which is absolute madness.
it's a crooked road GrrlScientist to exit madness
I'm thinking you need to be in the autumn of life to have an arc of experiences to be informed enough to be POTUS.
Maybe Clinton & Obama were not autumn enough, alas.
Trump certainly is! Obviously that's not enough.
They were young and brought a fresh look and new ideas to the presidency. But with youth on their sides, Clinton played school boy games and Obama got played by McConnell ( mind you McConnell being a old experienced politician knew tricks learned by his longtime in the Senate.
I have always felt that globalization is a euphemism for economic imperialism - modern day colonialism. Rich and powerful countries exploiting the underdeveloped for resources and labor; at the same time abandoning their own workers. Corporations are replacing nation states. They, not governments are making the rules. And how’s that going, one might ask. My answer is not good! Our very Earth is rebelling; it is on fire. Our greed is driving us over a cliff. The bill for abandoning humanity’s core values has come due! If we can’t come up with leaders with integrity, wisdom, intelligence, compassion and vision we are doomed. We are the only species causing our own extinction. To think: this is where our intelligence has gotten us! Maybe not so smart, after all.
Olivia Koppell, I strongly agree with you. You're yelling my yell!
Thanks. Let’s get others to join and make it a roar!
Olivia Koppell, I'm in! ♡
Nice that you can see the fundamental problem. Would it surprise you to find out that this is the very issue that was raised in our origin story as told in the Bible? God says ‘make the earth a paradise under my guidance,’ and the rebel angel said, ‘you don’t need to listen to him, you’re smart enough to be independent, you will be fine.’ We were conned and this world today is our final lesson. Class over. The bell is ringing. Time for the original Teacher to take back the school.
It was God’s choice to let us learn this the hard way. It hurt, but He can undo all the damage. He can in effect reach back in time, and resurrect all he wants who are now dead, so to him, they are not lost. (There is no inherent immortal soul, that in fact was part of Satan’s lie, that we don’t really die.) And of course he can repair the planet.
If all this sounds strange to you, it shouldn’t. It’s been in the Bible all along. But the churches don’t teach it. They are part of the con, although they may not realize it. And all the contradictory confusion in religion is part of the obfuscation by that Enemy of truth. Don’t let him defeat or discourage you.
I recommend jw.org. You won’t likely agree with all of it, but you should appreciate the simplicity and directness of explanation.
Stan, thanks I've never heard the origin story with the rebel angel. Interesting! Thought provoking that it was an angel not a devil in the story.
Yes the word Satan translates to “opposer, enemy” and devil means slanderer. One passage in scripture indicates that Satan was Eden’s trusted guardian angel who went rogue with a plan to slice off a kingdom of his own. So he went bad right there, not eons before. And his first overt act was to slander God, calling Him a liar.
See both points: Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Genesis 3:1-5. (The “king of Tyre” was never in Eden, so this is clearly addressing the one who was; snakes can’t talk, but they can be made to appear to.)
Interesting, Stan.
Capitalism has a strange connection to imperialism. Think of 19th century Britain selling opium in China - but banning it at home. Think of 18th century Britain selling slaves globally - but strictly limiting them at home. And think of 17th century Britain stealing land from far corners of the world - but vigorously defending property rights at home.
Similar stories for Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, French...the colonial imperialists exploited the "lawlessness" of foreign territories to profit from trade that would never be tolerated at home.
Finally we hear the truth and not a NPR talking heads version. The American oligarchy and private equity have bought off the political establishment to make millions off the American people. When will it stop?
Show me an NPR journalist who became a mega-millionaire and I'll believe they are sellouts.
Mainstream corporate media was always "sold out" - Dan Rather and others were professionals who were paid for by corporate sponsors who valued them because such professionals got their products/services to certain audiences. BUT the Dan Rather's, Peter Jennings, Cronkites etc of the world are professional - they might err, but they tried their very best not to profit from error, and fix mistakes. So does NPR. We cannot depend upon receiving news of the world exclusively from angels - but we can insist on professionalism...and they've done quite a good job - without a single journalist who got rich from lying.
How did this get turned into what NPR journalist make? All I said is there reporting is shallow when it comes to who in this economy is making all the money. Another message board ready to POLOTIC and not journalist.
As for talk about Afghanistan...I was there. So we're many many Americans. To shrug it aside is to disdain those people who tried their best and aren't sure what to do or feel. It's worth talking about.
Iraq? Different story. One that everyone in media gets wrong - esp in leftwing circles, where people talk up a $5 billion no-bid contract as if it was a big deal, and completely miss the $2 trillion per year oil bonds market and price range fixing scheme that built the political machinery to flip OH, PA, and empower or enrich private equity in charge of multiple GOP loyalist states. There's no way to talk about Iraq other than hanging out heads in shame for letting thousands of Americans die and hundreds of thousands of others merely to ensure US based fracking leases would be profitable for 10-20 years.
But NPR is never going to help sell Biden. That's our job as Americans who love having a country that hasn't been utterly corrupted. If we want to keep this country, it's on us to do it - no media outlet and no ad campaign will come to our rescue. Prof Reich cannot do it alone, nor can any number of senators or others. This is on us to see it done, or fail and rebuild if we can.
NPR playing both-siderism is a little different from CNN or MSNBC doing the same. They're trying to be professional, but they sort of expect people to listen past the idiotic sound bites and hear the analysis that follows - whereas most news is perceived on television or print or social media as nothing but a headline sound bite. I respect their work, but am not so optimistic that audiences actually do listen past nonsense to grasp nuance...yet cannot think of a better source in America.
Familiar with Hartmann. Some good points. I prefer Reich, who has many exquisite points and attracts several of the best and the bravest of the point makers. Indeed, I gleefully quibble with him because I agree with Reich about 95% - except not here. NAFTA was an opportunity for American labor unions to learn to operate across national borders - had there not been leadership determined to put them under siege in the White House. It was a good plan. Which failed. But a better plan by miles and an altogether different thing from China's accession to the WTO - not because Mexicans are so different from Chinese, but because Americans are able to empower unions that are led by Spanish-speaking Latinos - NAFTA couldhave led to California-Mex trans-Pacific hubs (and to a modest extent,it did) - rather than a dominant Tex-Mex exploitation hub. But it comes down to the Executive, the Supreme Court, and Labor itself - and still may. Either American unions learn to unite with Mexico, or they become as obsolete as they were in the 19th century (until they reorganized in the 20th). Adapt or die - the need remains unchanged.
Prof. Reich is correct in his evaluation of NAFTA and free trade in general. It was mistaken, helped accelerate inequities, made a few rich and many poorer. There is another factor we have to throw in here: free trade also accelerates consumption, and bringing jobs back might do that too, in a time where we must contemplate "degrowth" for the sake of the planet. Degrowth and redistribution are, understandably, political losers, while "bringing jobs back" and strengthening infrastructure are political winners, explaining Biden's focus. This year is showing, with every passing climatic disaster, that simply bringing back jobs and improving our capacities will lead to steep loses if you don't also address the ecological decline smacking us in the face. Accepting the necessity of less is the hardest political choice to make, yet one essential for life on the planet. While all of us must do our parts, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, the Walton Family and the Cargill/McMillan's of the world have to do a lot more.
RR has written "..what if a country’s comparative advantage comes in allowing its workers to labor under dangerous or exploitative conditions?" I will go one further: What if a country uses cheap labor to build itself up so that it may attack other countries? This is the situation the West now finds itself in with China. Free trade--ceteris paribus--may be the best economic policy. But in the real world there is rarely "ceteris paribus".