I draw your attention to the Grenfell Tower disaster in London seven years ago. The results of the enquiry are now, finally, in - and they make excoriating reading. Much of the blame is laid at the Tory government's door, due to the mad dash to eliminate almost all regulations. 73 people died.
The difference is...that the Tory party was definitively routed in the recent UK election. Here, despite a scintillating debate performance by VP Harris, we are still looking at the possibility of four more years of government by a mendacious, incoherent, rambling, and yes, let's face it, demented, individual.
Are you speaking of the National Popular Vote (NPV)? The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (Explanation). It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes (Status in the states). It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 61 electoral votes.
It wouldn't need an amendment. The Constitution leaves the States free to decide how to cast their votes. A given State could, for example, cast their votes for the winner in its own jurisdiction.
States comprising 209 of the needed 270 Electoral Votes (EV) to win a Presidential election are currently members of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). States comprising an additional 74 EV have passed legislation to enter the NPVIC in at least one of their legislative chambers. These additional states would be sufficient to pass 270 EV (209 + 74 = 283). Having 270 EV among their members will activate the Compact in the following July. Passing U.S. Congressional legislation to endorse the Compact will strengthen its Constitutional status. However, experience with the current totally corrupt Supreme Court, blatantly partisan for the Republican Party, suggests that they might concoct any reason they might imagine to maintain the Republican advantage with the Electoral College by declaring the NPVIC unconstitutional.
This suggests that the need for the Democrats, having gained control of the federal government, to reform the Supreme Court is time sensitive, i.e., before the NPVIC is activated. Obviously, the undemocratic Filibuster in the U. S. Senate will first need to be expunged before anything can be done. The U. S. Constitution in Article III specifies lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices, but as several people have recently pointed out, the Constitution does NOT specify that all of them will necessarily qualify to vote. Congress could legislate that only the nine most recent Justices would ordinarily vote. The emeritus members would undertake other supporting judicial tasks, including temporarily filling in for a recusing Justice in some particular case before the Court. The legislation would specify that one new Court member would be appointed in each two-year Congressional term, so after each eighteen-year period the voting members would have been replaced. The current corrupt Court might temporarily delay the implementation of the NPVIC, but their time would rapidly pass.
Thank you, Don. That answered quite a few questions I had. So, basically, we need a Democratic House and Senate in order to reform the Supreme Court. I would hope that one of those reforms is term limits for the justices. Also, a very strict code of ethics with severe penalties (like being disrobed) for noncompliance.
Peggy Freeman, now that's an awful picture of the awful being disrobed, literally. My mind got rid of that definition of disrobing really fast and went to your intended definition.
Here is the appropriate section (1) of Article III Don.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It does not say that Federal Judges serve for a lifetime band it does say that they hold their office during good Behaviour.
The interpretation of the Art III, Section 1, that you state is the common interpretation and is the source of the troubles with SCOTUS..
Alito and Thomas have been proven to not behaved and are corrupt, The Senate, not the house, approved their appointment and that which given can taken away, the Senate can remove them,if they have the guts.
Thank you for the clarification, William. Our Senate, like the Roman senate, is supposed to act as bulwark against autocracy. Tragically, Republican Senators betrayed us and the Constitution when they failed to impeach Trump. The Roberts Court presidential immunity ruling was another betrayal. The Constitution, and our democracy, are in peril.
William, my statement does lack precision. As you point out, Article III says "during good Behavior" and not "for life". The historical effect has been a life term or a term until voluntary retirement: the impeachment process has been habitually underused. "During good Behavior" might suggest a removement process distinct from and with different standards than impeachment, but that not becoming the practice was perhaps established in 1805 with the attempted removal of Associate Justice Samuel Chase (not to be confused with Chief Justice Salmon Chase). President Jefferson accused him of blatant partisanship, which might have become a standard for removal for lack of "good behavior", but he was acquitted. That may have set the precedent that the impeachment process that applies to any government official was what lack of good behavior meant in the case of Justices.
With that clarification, I still find the recent suggestion by several writers that "hold their office" does not necessarily imply exercising the voting aspect of the Justices' tasks. Converting them to a non-voting emeritus status (my terminology) after eighteen years does not explicitly contradict the text of Article III, so it offers a means of reforming the Court without a Constitutional Amendment.
The current SCOTUS is corrupt--and illegitimate. It is illegitimate because it has been captured by a political party engaged in insurrection. If we fail to vote this party out of power we shall lose most of what has been gained after 1776. Project 2025 is their dream.
As if the Democratic Party offers something that the founders and framers would not have thrown the tea in the harbor over? Stop. I mean, unless you want to argue there are "levels of" moral bankruptcy....
Don, thank you for your incisive analysis. Front of mind is that the major hurdle to enacting vanguard legislation that you suggest, is the presence of about half of the legislators in the U.S. Congress. These are the corrupted trump (r)epublicans who have already sacrificed their souls to their lawless god. The only party left with a measure of sanity needs to maintain the Executive and regain control of the Legislative branch of government. Else the monomaniacal drumpf and his cadres will see to the destruction of 250 years of positive efforts by decent people to maintain a republic. The grass-roots vote needs to turn out like never before.
The entirety of Congress aside from the dozen or so democratic members who are true progressive and Bernie are completely illegitimate there representing no one but the donor class. You are suffering from the illusion of choice.
There is no party left of sanity. Just fucking stop the bullshit blind tribal allegiance is the vehicle that usher us to this Third World shit hole.
The soul focus of the electric should be ending big and dark money and removing barriers concerning access to the ballot. Without those two prerequisites, none of the other 1000 things that need fixed, tweeked, or burn it to the Ground can be properly addressed.
A disadvantage of the NPV is that it's not a binding commitment. A state can withdraw from the Compact. So it's life depends on the makeup of the state.
The same states that are responsible for the Electoral Vote, the 3/5ths of a human clause and 2 senators per state will not sign the National Popular Vote, for the same reasons that there is an electoral college,and 2 senators per state.
No it does not. The only single thing the constitution leaves to the states specificallyW the location of the Senate polling place. That is it. A simple legislative mandate of electors awarded on the ratio of popular vote would make the electoral college legitimate and balance out the unfair and unconstitutional small state leverage. The Senate rules and make up of the body account for the situation already. Winner take all small state far undue influence.
That is not how it works. You would need a constitutional amendment. Just as well, State like Idaho are not going to be ruled by NY and CA. You would have civil war. States would not give up their voice and be ruled by major coastal populations centers. You people are little tyrants who cry about Democracy then in private discuss how to rule.
This is actually the whole point of the Senate. To provide equal representation to states, regardless of population, in the senior legislative body. The EC is a vestige of the elitist views of the Framers of the Constitution who were afraid of having a President elected via direct democratic voting. And the U.S. is stuck with this relic of an institution which continues to befuddle the rest of the democratic countries in the world.
The Senate is NOT part of the executive branch. The framers knew that state would not join the UNITED STATES if they had no representation for the executive branch. You would have a situation where NY and CA ruled every election and smaller states would have no voice or representation at the executive level. Just as well, we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! We are a REPUBLIC. Majority rules is not how things work here, hence the EC. I don't even think you know how the EC works.
Not true. It has been completely bastardized from the original construction. It was implemented to be a firewall. Needed now more than ever. to maintain that intention, we need it to be filled with honest brokers, obviously and the awarding of electors by a ratio of popular vote. Just stop. Speaking on topics you don't know anything about is always a terrible optic.
You are correct in that it tips the scales towards the small states which was already dealt with and given a level playing field by the make up apparatus of the Senate.
It's called the National Popular Interstate Vote compact and lacks just about 38 votes to be enacted. And it's passed at least one chamber in enough states to effectively end the electoral college
Wake up people we do not want to end the electoral college. It, if populated by honest brokers with the constitutional intention of fulfilling its job is an important firewall. Obviously, as is it has failed us many times. In 2000, and 2016 for example. it should stay. The only thing that should change beside the constituency of honest brokers is a legislative mandate from Washington DC to award electors on the ratio of popular vote. Winner take all is bogus AF and in no way would have been part of the construction from the framers.
Let’s keep it civil and informative. SCOTUS fid not rule that the President could commit any crime and not be prosecuted. They ruled that POTUS was immune when performing official acts but the limits of that immunity were not articulated leaving it to the lower courts to decide and SCOTUS to act as the final.
It is or should be obvious that Congress or Legislatures cannot impinge on Executive duties. It should be equally obvious that the founders never imagined that a President should be compelled to break laws to perform his/her duties. Yet here we are with SCOTUS taking a case that should never have been taken (certiorari)).
John Citoyen, I second CLS comment. what is and is not an official act will be determined by Congress or SCOTUS and the President in his official capacity can sign Executive Orders or order the death of anyone.
In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
I failed to mention that 1) any president could probably order the execution of anyone anywhere simply because the tools are at his/her disposal. 2) the level of restraint a president might exercise is at his discretion but it certainly helps to have a rational set of advisors 3) I don’t have concerns about Biden or Harris, but Trump is not likely to have rational advisors and it’s almost guaranteed they will test whatever limits SCOTUS may have had in mind. It’s a dangerous guessing game to be sure.
Good point, however, the circumstances. surrounding the killing of Al - Aulaqi et al were somewhat unique and probably do not extend to killing anyone anywhere at anytime especially on US soil.
Since the case was dismissed, it does not create or amplify any legal principles that could be useful precedent. It does, however, raise some questions about the contours of presidential power. Even though courts like to claim that they do not resolve political issues, this case was likely dismissed because the political winds favored dismissal
They did not I think provide any clarity as what is or is not an official act by a sitting president. Trump claims as did Nixon that anything and everything is official if the President does it. Even cheating at golf.
I don't think we'd need to go that far. I do think it's reasonable to impeach members of the Court if they engage in corruption, which would -- or at least should -- include rulings that go against the Constitution, like the immunity ruling. Lifetime tenure on the bench should not be a free pass to do anything they want.
Art III, Section 1 of the constitution, does not say that federal judges serve for life or have no term limits, it says that they serve during good behavior.
The Senate, not the house, approves their appointment, and he that giveth can taketh away, there is no need for impeachment (which involves the house, as their is no procedure for impeachment of judges in the constitution or law),. The Senate confirms appointments and the Senate can revoke the confirmation.
Article Ii section 4 covers impeachment of President,VP and all civil officers. That includes federal judges. The process is identical. The senate CANNOT revoke confirmation as you claim. Also, the term “ during good behavior” simply means that bad behavior is impeachable. Article III section 2 clause 2 is far more useful in dealing with the current group. Congress can change the rules for all matters not under “original jurisdiction”. That could mean even limiting what cases it takes and who gets to preside.
No. A ridiculous suggestion. Not possible in a lifetime. That would enter and constitutional amendment that has not only achieve the required 37 states approval but passing by Congress. A legislative mandate of the ratio of popular vote awarding of electorates, the proper policy. It's functioning under honest brokerage, it is a very important firewall. Failing us obviously in 2016.
No, it's not ridiculous. And the Electoral College doesn't actually serve as any kind of firewall. If Republican electors weren't willing to vote against their party's nominee in 2016 despite the obvious threat he posed, there's no reason to expect electors in the future to do any better. To be sure, totally eliminating the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment would be extremely difficult (though if it ever becomes possible, it should be done). But as Michael mentioned above, it is possible to effectively eliminate the Electoral College as a factor if enough states agree to require that their state's electors vote for the national popular vote winner. There's a movement to do just that called the National Popular Vote compact, and it's just a few states away from getting a majority.
Another option that I've seen mentioned is getting the Supreme Court to rule that the current winner take all system for awarding electoral votes violates the rights of those who vote for the losing candidate - which in fact it effectively does, as their votes end up counting for nothing. This would require all states to award electors in proportion to the percentage of the state's popular vote that each candidate received. But such a ruling would obviously only come from a completely different Supreme Court than the one we have now.
I do prefer option #2: The elimination of the "winner takes all" system.
The Founding Fathers, who deep at heart didn't really trust "We The People" to make a good decision decided on a compromise [and now a compromisED system] to elect a President:
Yes, the People will have a vote in electing their President but, just in case, let's have folks who know better ["Electors", CHOSEN BY THEIR POLITICAL PARTY] to be able to 'moderate' [read "modify"] the will of the rabble.
Let's face it: These electors have no other qualification besides being ardent supporters of their Party, by hook or by crook: The honor is bestowed upon you if you rake in enough money and are totally "in the bag" with your Party. But partisanship is precisely what's killing our system.
Instead, as Eric was saying, if, in each State, the delegation was awarded according to the Popular vote, then the over all "will of the People" would be respected.
Look at my State: Wisconsin: We are very much a 'purple State', a very near 50/50 state and we have 10 delegates. but we are a "winner takes all" State. That is very unfair to the 50% of the voters who chose the guy who lost: They end up NOT having ANY representation to carry their voice and the winning Party can run roughshod over their wishes.
But only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule: Their delegates are awarded proportionately. That is a more representative system, a more just system, in which everyone has a voice.
You would believe that those who want to keep the 'filibuster system' so that 'the minority doesn't get crushed by the majority', would be in favor of proportional representation, wouldn't you? Alas, no.
Factions are such that if it helps your Party, you are for it. I'm reminded of George Washington's warning:
George Washington warned of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his Farewell Address as President of United States. “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”
But it's important what kind of proportional system is used. The electoral votes have to be awarded based on the total popular votes for the entire state. No other way of doing it would solve the problem. We don't want to do it like it is done in Nebraska and Maine, as in those cases the electoral votes are based on House districts, which in many states (including Wisconsin) have been heavily gerrymandered by Republicans. And they'd go even further with the gerrymandering if electoral votes are awarded by House district everywhere.
Good point! It should be based on the total State population. It might be difficult, though because the candidate do compete in pre-arranged districts which, as you point out are heavily gerrymandered.
And with this corrupt SCOTUS that won't lift a finger to undo gerrymandering, it will take a while, but at least, there would be some districts in each State that would be awarded to the losing Party.
Today's framework of the electoral college has nothing to do with the Framers intentions. It is heavily bastardized. The only way the founders would keep it as is is the aforementioned policy of doing away with the winner take all award of electors. It does nothing but heavily tip the skills to order small states. They had already even them by the make up of the Senate.
Your contention that there's no expectation for good government because it's filled with dishonest brokers is absolutely beyond moronic. So as Congress and the executive, the supreme court. Abolish them also? Get a grip.
The weak link in this chain is obviously "we the people" we suck. We are in no way, shape or form performing our #Duty.
We are completely derelict. I appreciate you providing proof of theory and concept.
Just because it doesn't doesn't mean that it is supposed to be that way. FFS sakes United States Congress does not represent "we the people" either. Do you think we should abolish? Sit down and be quiet
Gordon Hoffman: It is a good thing that Trump supporters are a dwindling minority. With all the threats to our votes, this could help. But even if they "win" , they will be losers. This is the United States 🇺🇸. Of America.. Imperfect , but strong willed. They would have to kill every last human, and then they would not have US. The goose that laid the truly Golden egg
No they would not. We were just bitch about it on Twitter like we do now. Christ there is no line. Our federal government could be putting minorities in concentration camps, shooting LGBQT peeps in the street for a broadcast entertainment production and open Lee submitting bids for children and all we would do about it is bitch on the worldwide Tik Tok machine. Just like we do now. The constitution was completely abandon in 2010 actually before that. Whenever the "Heller" decision was.
Dwindling minority??? I took 3rd place in the Washington State US Senate race. I had life long Patty voters come to me saying they jumped ship for the first time. RFK didn't endorse Biden. Keep coping. Trump is going to win in the biggest landslide America has EVER seen. Then in 2028 I will get elected and we will take full power. Then guess what? I am going to call for an audit of the government to set a 5% reduction in waste goal to offset exempting the middle class from paying income taxes. The Horror. The middle class being able to keep their money. You truly are unhinged and should stop reading this garbage. Maybe actually go to a Trump rally and see for yourself. Or you can stay in your little SM bubble and pretend you are winning.
The thing is that Wyoming has the same number of votes in the senate as California. Unless they make cows registered voters in Wyoming populations will never be represented.
Completely unneeded and not binding. The normal legislative mandate system applies here. A simple two sentence in perpetuity law of the awarding of electors on a ratio of popular vote basis from Congress and the executive is all that is needed. The constitution specifically in pointedly enumerates the only single Thing that Congress does not have power to regulate concerning elections on the state level is the location of the Senate contest polling place.
The consent of allowing the document to be "interpreted" has consequences..... all of them bad.
The Constitution of the United States is meant to be FOLLOWED.
It is worse than that Michael. The RNC has trained 100,000 poll watchers (many of whom will have guns) to station at vital election districts. Republican legislatures have passed over 100 Voter Suppression laws, and voter registration lists have been scrubbed, Georgia has passed a law that enables county election offiicials to delay certifyiing results if there is a complaint. Steve Bannon said that they have drawn up law suits challenging results in swing states, they are in the hands of lawyers who will be par,ed on court house steps, an fake electors will have been signed up, and parked on Capitol steps, so that what happened in Minn last time doesn't happen again (real electorsgot into the state capitol ahead of the fakes.
They are also going to challenge the Vice President, if she wins the election, certifying her own election, and that will go to SCOTUS, and need I tell you of the result. If the election isn't resolved, then Congress will pick the winner, and each state gets one vote, and their are more red states than blue states.
A fair comparison, given that both countries have nukes, neither country will have elections, Trump will be only too happy to take on the role of Dear Leader and pass it on to Don Jr. when he dies.
In my opinion, he isn't demented in the sense of forgetful, but he lacks decisional capacity. He's certainly a personality disorder, we can split hairs over whether it's narcissistic or borderline, but it's incurable relies on enablers. A swarm of fleas and ticks make a living off him when no serious investor ever has. Elon Musk owns him now.
As reported in the Guardian, new PM Keir Starmer has a stock answer during PM question time, 22 billion pounds, the budget hole inherited from a completely inept Tory party. One similarity between us and them, both the Tories and Republicans are completely bereft of anyone who can remotely lead them. Not only is there no bench strength, there is no bench.
In other words: A Kakistocracy, or rule by the least qualified. One would be hard-pressed to find someone in this flourishing country LESS able than bunkerboy or musk. They are two FAILED businessmen who ruin EVERYTHING they touch!
Remember when Twitter wasn't COMPLETE garbage? How about trump stea-oh wait.
These Old Agencies, like the FDA, the SEC, and the NLRB... Were the result of Disasters in which Thousands Died, or became Impoverished.... Unfettered Capitalism makes a Few Rich, and Most Poor...
I agree, Smokey. Americans are finally waking up to the problem of these mass shootings though I doubt very much will be done to fix that problem. Also, this election has opened quite a few eyes to the danger we are facing with the orange man. This didn't happen overnight, it has been building for decades and if we don't stop it now, we will have a really bad problem!
George Alden, What exactly is wrong with mRNA vaccines, in your opinion?
"Corporate entities" (a.k.a. "corporations") which are regulated by government do of necessity interact with their regulators and lobby legislators. They always will. We can change the personnel in charge of relating and legislating, and possibly come up with different solutions, but they will still face the same set of problems.
Terrible and entirely predictable. Here in Northern Ireland a Westminster politically supported (primarily via malign neglect) duopoly has overseen the environmental disaster of the killing, through the unregulated agricultural toxic waste disposal, of one of Europe’s largest fresh water lakes, Lough Neagh. A lake that supplies 40% of our drinking water. Still nothing being done about this disaster. No one here expects any progress before we are allowed Irish reunification by Westminster and full environmental regulatory alignment with the EU.
Wow, I went and read about Lough Neagh and it's an unbelievable mess. To say nothing of its not only being privately owned and protected by some kind of immunity that applies to royal wasters, and the titled family that owns the Lough seems especially nuts, though not at all out of line with America's increasingly empowered elite. I can see why this example came to mind. It's incredible in its stupidity and needlessness.
This kind of destructive ecological ignorance and concomitant political and financial power abuses seem to be ubiquitous. So hard and exhausting to fight against. It stinks. Quite literally in the tragic case of a once beautiful natural Irish gem, Lough Neagh.
Monnina, so sorry. Many around the world feel your pain. We're connected in spirit by our experiences, of the effects of some awful, absurdly wealthy people owning some absurdly awful politicians. The insanity is rampant. Sending you hope and solidarity.
Monnina, that's terrible! I imagine you feel as frustrated as we do right now. Sometimes, it feels like nothing you do is enough and no one will help you make the change necessary to fix it!
It doesn't seem that a situation that bad could continue much longer. The American Revolution was fought over less dire circumstances than that. I am worried about what will happen if enough people are pushed to the edge of survival.
Monnina, Lough Neagh is off topic for a discussion of American politics ( imho ) but I'd like some more info: can you suggest a reliable online source that explains the problem and the political obstacles to a solution?
Very informative and alarming post, Sean. Thank you. Supports the notion that trump (with his MAGA allies and whoever unseen moneyed powerful others) have a plan to seize power and do not care about the democratic processes and election outcome or even the appearance of our democracy being taken. The coup looks like a "certainty." Trump is merely president but those invisible others will run the show/government. That's my conjecture, of course.
This is a ridiculous statement. Most of the blame lies with the US manufacturer of the insulated panels used on an exterior renovation. The architects specified the material based on a fire rating provided by the manufacturer. It was stated as fire resistant but this was due to improper (or deceptive) testing practices. I'm an architect so I am familiar with this.
We have had 13 years of government aimed at making life easier for the big money, and to hell with the rest of us. Leaving the EU was another step in this deregulation process and it has made us poorer and done nothing else. The right wing are nothing but liars. and con men
Regulations have their place, if enforced, they often keep people alive, i.e, air plane maintenance regulations, building codes, electrical code regulations.
Good regulatory governance might be a problem. But it needs competence and expertise.
Then the enigma: why is the Republican party controlled by stupidity?
After a few classes of economics, every student can see that the import tariff is not paid to the U.S., but paid for by the consumers. It is unbelievable that millions of educated Americans even listen to this nonsense.
I took two classes in economics in college. They were smaller classes maybe 20 students. Economics is NOT taught in most public schools, I agree, it should be, And it's not just the MAGA crowd that buys into trump's bullshit - he doesn't understand it himself - but neiother do the majority of Americans.
Fay, something everyone should be reminded of about economics is that it is not a science. The wealthy have used certain economists to promote their agendas with the help of the media to gaslight the population into believing BS like "trickle down." Those economists bask in the glory with their Nobel prizes and all the way to the bank with money from book sales and lecture fees. They are dangerously in positions where they are capable of manipulating the economy for their bankster friends and the wealthy.
Absolutely true. There have been untold economic theories over the centuries - Adam Smith, Hayek (Austrian), classical, Keynes, neoclassical, monetarism, to name a few. I'm not an expert on any, but as with religion they can't all be right. Any teaching course is going to promote one, probably wrongly. The only person I've seen take anything approaching a scientific view is Prof. Steve Keen - he's on here, check him out. What really needs teaching is critical thinking.
Rick Jones, teaching critical thinking and teaching about the common good, and our interconnectedness to our fellow citizens and all of nature. That we do not live in a silo. Teaching that we are interconnected with what transpires throughout the world and increasingly also, in the space beyond our planet is important too.
dnkarr, if only we (those powered not just by self-interest) were in charge of the world. Ahhh what a dream! Increasing those "we" in charge is the goal.
I agree Gloria they are in positions where they are capable of manipulating the economy and they will manipulate it into the grave, and 350 million Americans will starve possibly!
Is that "Bankster" friends or "gangster" friends? Seems more like the latter when you recall the lawlessness that existed in the USA's initial takeover of the country from the Native Americans. What gave us the right to do so?
Maria Miller, nothing. It was a strong conditioned belief that white was superior and more civilzed that caused so much suffering. There, were of course, white people who rejected that as nonsense, but they didn't have the most power, so they couldn't stop it on a widespread scale.
True. But economics does provide an analytical framework for thinking about ideas in both micro and macroeconomic contexts as does political science and social science. It should be respected in the same vein.
Republicans are anti science and have often used quack scientists and quack economists to argue against sound analysis and facts. Even though Milton Friedman received accolades for his work it represents a turning point in economics theory that, even though academically sound has since also turned on us. What seems to work best is to apply the right theory at the right time .
Few of us know when our economics wizards are acting rationally because they tend to treat their preferred theories as universally applicable.( for example, Europe suffered longer and more intensely than did the US in the great recession. The reason was that Germany and the EU stuck to “Austrian School” beliefs in austerity which generally extended the recession. The US got back to Keynesian theory and recovered more quickly. On the side, few if us even knew that Alan Greenspan was a more radical “free marketer” i.e. a libertarian. You can’t get much farther into economics la la land than that. Hood thing he left and left it to Bernanke!
Gloria J. Maloney, thanks for pointing it out that the economists we often hear from have been twisted by education bias propagated by oligarch donations to their college programs.
Well said. I was taught economics in high school by a right-winged fanatic of Ayn Rand's stupid Atlas Shrugged. But later my curiosity led me to Adam Smith, Paul Krugman, and of course, Robert Reich. And you know the biggest teacher of true economics? History. The Guilded Age, The Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes and The New Deal.
true economics" in terms of what has worked to benefit the middle and lower classes. Of course, there are wealthy who have sought to debunk past history (Milton Friedman) in favor of less regulation, less taxes on the wealthy. But we've seen where that leads: more wealth accumulation, more power by a few, and less and less available for the middle class and poor. History is the best teacher. That's one reason history is so important to learn. Yet, it is often poorly taught or not taking seriously.
Yeah, that's why it's called the dismal science. If this goes up then that goes down. But why. The best example is the stock market, the original video fantasy game. Nothing is actually made, bought or sold except fantasies and rumors. I understand comparatively unfettered people being puzzled, angry and afraid. So they cling to reassuring nonsense. Gen Zs are now saying it's stupid to buy a house...ever....because in the end, the mortgage is just paying the bank and you have nothing at the end because the rates are so high. True. Explained to me by several nice, middle class, recent college graduates.
Fay, I understand what you write, but the explanation is not enough. How can this horrendous BS be a central element in Trumponomics? Are Americans really this stupid? Let us think about the emotions and the rationality. Trump is the master of the underbelly and his defeat by Harris in the debate does not mean the same for the election.
Dad always said "never discount stupidity as a reason." After nearly 70 years on the planet, life has never disproved his statement. As a sidenote--my sibling and I have a running disagreement--I contend that 'stupid' is infinite and he doesn't agree. :D
Tariffs are specifically designed to allow domestic manufacturers and farmers to compete with cheaper imported goods. In other words they are guaranteed, by design, to cause inflation. Sometimes targeted tariffs are in the national interest, to allow domestic production to continue or start up in the face of foreign competition, for supply chain security as well as defense capability, or to counteract unfair subsidization of foreign competitors. But adding a 20% tariff on all imports is a recipe for short term hyper inflation in sectors where there's no domestic capability or available capacity. If tariffs "work" by encouraging consumption of goods produced in the US, they will eventually generate zero income. Not a sustainable tax policy.
When Trump imposed a tariff on Chinese goods China retaliated by imposing a tax on American agricultural products. Trump had to bail out US farmers with subsidies. US taxpayers ended paying for this experiment, and now this moron is proposing more and higher tariffs. Go figure!
That's a prime example of the futility of tariffs as an economic (not political) tool. All tariffs will do is cause a trade war, which will (depending on the combatants) end up in retaliatory tariffs, WTO/NAFTA tribunals and judgements, and in the end, cost consumers more. The only justification for a tariff is to protect particular industries critical to the overall security of the state. That is a justifiable political rationale, but not an economic one, and it won't make goods and services cheaper.
A tariff can also serve as a fiscal tool, an excise tax. Libertarians want to eliminate the personal income tax and replace it with sales taxes, a tariff would be one of them. What Trump proposes is his typical hyperbole, evidently meant to excite his base.
Tariffs are a terrible idea if you are intent upon being a capitalist macro economic sovereign. The entire mechanism of capitalism is defined by an unfettered true free market along with thoughtfully and placed strictly enforced consumer protections. The government should have no sway in any market.
If it's not obvious that we are an example of my contention, you really don't get it. The only free market in America is the farmers market on Wednesday evenings and Saturday mornings at the park. We have not undergone inflation since the 70s. We have been victims of endless antitrust violations.
Yet it isn't that hard to explain China has been able to "'dump" very cheap products on our market by using [and abusing] their people, paying them very low wages. It is, after all, a COMMUNIST Country.
Over here, folks [like Ron Johnson, for one] felt that it was great to be able to procure goods at a lower price by exporting jobs: You get to be the guy who bring in cheap stuff for the masses *AND*, more importantly, you break the back of American Unions, who are a thorn in the side of Corporations such as his. 'Win-win". After that, you just have to just vilify folks who can't get a job and poo-poo a system that gives food stamps to 'lazy people'.
So we can import good for very cheap. Trump says: "The Chinese have been eating our lunch",[which is true, thanks to folks like him, BTW] so let's impose tariffs.
Who pays the tariffs? In a first move, those who import goods. And to whom does the money go? the American Government. Which will be OK when HE is the Government, I guess. "l'état c'est moi" said Louis XIV. [And soon, perhaps, Trump the First!]
Anyway, in a second move, do you think that the importers are going to eat the loss? Nay, nay. They always pass it on who? The consumer: That's you and me! That's how WE end up paying these tariffs.
But that's not the only damage: If WE raise tariffs, Communist China will retaliate by raising tariffs on the goods that they import from us/US.
Who is that going to hurt? Well, our exporting sector, that's who. Our farmers won't be able to sell their wheat, beef, ginseng etc. over there. [Communist China can get that from Canada, Argentina etc. until we come to our senses and drop the idiotic policy].
The last thing we should wish for is a Tariff War.
Agree except there are no Communists in China. All that is called Communist is not. Read Karl Marx. China, North Korea and Russia are brutal dictatorships plain and simple, NOT the Marxist theory about governmental "evolution" through one stage. Corrupt, authoritarian regimes propped up by oligarchs in Russia and a bit less so in China, and not at all so in North Korea where there is nothing that isn't owned by Kim Inc. Say it again FBO the GOP, there are no Communists anymore.
One does not preclude the other: they can be communist [which they still call themselves,] and *also* be a dictatorship: Says the Wiki:
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC), is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Under the leadership of Mao Zedong, the CCP emerged victorious in the Chinese Civil War against the Kuomintang.
In the broad lines, I still agree with you: Karl Marx would be astonished to look at China today.
Similarly, many a democracy is a democracy in name only, like the "Democratic Republic of Korea"
Your analysis is correct. Given that so much comes from China, Americans would need to do without or pay higher prices. Maybe not 100% of the tariff cost since importers may be able to get price reductions from manufacturers but that is not likely. And there will be US importers lobbying to get exemptions which Trump might just give so long as he gets something in return.
Trump is epicenter of oligarchic malevolence. I’ve often wondered how much of the problem he really is. What concerns me most about Trump is that he has no principles or morals to keep him in line. He’s all ego but with relatively little knowledge. He tried staffing the Whitehouse and his cabinet with smart people who many thought would keep him under control. Given a second term, he will staff with sycophants, quacks and malevolent manipulators. Foreign policy will depend on who is lining his pockets or boosting his ego. That does not bode well for the future of democracy.
John, agreed. I bought the book about his first term, written by Anonymus. It is written with cautious restraint, but you can see what his second term will be.
The biggest problem in America today is the Republican Party that continues to support Trump’s ridiculous agenda when they all know he’s a novice who knows nothing about how to run a government! I told my wife when Trump was elected, by the minority, in 2016, that he would destroy the Republican Party! He thinks running the country is just another business to enhance his own interests! You are exactly right Professor, that regulations are designed to protect us from greedy corporations who couldn’t care less about the environment or the average American.
Yes, DJT tried to run the USG as one of his Properties... The Results, over $6,000,000,000,000 in new National Debt... Didn't the "Fabulously Successful Businessman", Declare Bankruptcy six times?
It's closer to 8 trillion with 4 trillion more coming in the next six years due to decreased revenue in federal receipts because of tax breaks to the ultra wealthy.
Yes Keith, all agreed, but how can any Republican with a healthy mind accept this childish nonsense? Please help me to understand millions of your fellow country men.
I think the healthy mind is where you don't understand the Republicans. They were raised to think irrationally and by God that is what they are going to do!
Tom van Doormaal ; The profit motive notwithstanding , look at the many high profile Republicans who have endorsed Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. The Lincoln Project have as well. Even the likes of Dick Cheney. They see that destroying Democracy and supporting fascism is not sustainable for anything good ; unless you want a system like Putin and his small circle of loyalists have, or the same thing with Kim Jon Un , Victor Orban or any other dictator. Fascism is not great for much of anything, especially free enterprise.
If you think they are actually opponents in real life you are missing the entire picture you don't see what you're looking at. They're completely bipartisan behind closed doors. They are partners in a trans global criminal syndicate. They have the same donors, eat at the same restaurants, belong to the same clubs, have the same interests. You are suffering from an illusion of choice.
Polls are owned , most likely most of them by the wealthy who want tax breaks and subsidies. Remember the red wave predicted by polls back in the mid terms? Fool me once....
Tom Van Doormaal: Remember that those who own the media: even the "liberal " leaning media, control the message. They 'massage' it. Sometimes subtly. Then there is the fact that the things not covered are a glaring omission. Look at the way tRUMP got 9 minutes more speech time in the debate: despite the "mute button" capability on the microphones. But since he won a coin toss he also got the last word: even when he went over on the two minute time limit.Maybe that is why he said he may not be interested in another debate. Next time there may not be a chance to get the last word in such an unfair way.
Tom Van Doormaal: We shall see how the voters vote: Hopefully. I'm thinking that most are on to him by now. Even those who live in red states who have loved ones who died because of poor response to Early Deadly Covid viruses. Or the lies that injecting bleach would cure or prevent illness. Or the banning of masks. I think even the ones who were in his thrall completely would have been upset to see their children harassed because they wore masks. Or they , the parents, we're threatened, or even attacked because they were following the advice of actual medical doctors and health authorities instead of a twisted power mad tyrant wanna be.
Well, Tom, the US was born in violence. Native Americans were slaughtered and are still some of the poorest compatriots we have. People from Africa were forcefully brought here to become slaves and they still have not achieved complete equality: Black women still do not have the same access to doctors and many more die in childbirth than do white women.
A culture cannot have this level of violence without creating 'reasons' to be violent against these populations. Those reasons are often created from whole cloth, but if you repeat them long enough and often enough, in books, movies, the laws will reflect that, and your children and your children's children will inherit this [convenient] way of thinking: It gives them a presumption of superiority, and even when they are poor, their attitude is "Well, at least, I'm not black".
At this last debate, Trump asserted without any proof that in Springfield Ohio, there are many immigrants from Haiti who are eating their neighbors' pet dogs and cats!
The Governor has stepped in to debunk the lie, but the damage is already done: Haitians are now fearful for their lives because their neighbors now look at them with suspicion.
Have any cats and dogs even disappeared? IMHO, we need to start punishing those lies: it is, after all, calumny, and calumny can be proven and those who push it can be fined or imprisoned.
We also need to reform our system of Justice, which is much too slow to be effective: a liar can appeal as long as he has money, and even if you get gain of cause in a trial, it can be many more years before you get the first proceeds of this punishment.
Even worse, he thinks government is a business LIKE THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION—a small family owned business where his word IS the law and the flow of activity runs from deal to deal within a narrow range of activities. Wrong on every count!
Oh yeah — and he calls himself the King of Debt — loose translation, he knows how to make a profit out of bankruptcy, renegotiate individual loans and stiff contractors.
A country— especially one with the world’s reference economy — doesn’t work that way.
His business, had to declare at least 6 Bankruptcies. Proof, inept, at least, worst case, totally incapable of running businesses. Any awareness of his records as a business owner, or multiple businesses, reveals, corruptions, records reveal the many problems, reasons, issues complexities, inconsistencies and include ties to mafia ties. Tangled webs that are still not fully understood, nor fully investigated. Different state and federal jurisdictions.
Absolutely. Including bankrupt casinos. One of his appeals to some die hard Magats is that he’s a successful businessman. That might be his first big lie. Yet look what he did to national debt,with more to come if he’s re-elected.
He’s tremendously weak. Beyond “me me me “ and racisl hatred, he doesn’t really have policies. After this became apparent during his first administration extremists flocked to him to sell him their wack- o policies in exchange for flattery or favor or votes. You know, he really DOESN’T know that much about Project 2025. How could he? Now they have planted JD vance as president in waiting. Vance DOES understand P2025. Theyll get Trump out within six months of inauguration.
People like Putin orban kim can ( and did) see this weakness @ 25000 miles away. Kim let his true opinion ( dotard) slip before seducing Trump into falling in love. I’d be embarrassed if a child of mine fell for this.
PS. I dont totally discount the possibility that Putin, in particular, has some kompromat on Trump
It amazes me how they are able to excuse his lack of business acumen for their love of money and power. That and their hatred of labor, women, immigrants and the environment is truly breathtaking.
OMG ! 😱. I really tried to hear something (anything) from Trump that could possibly make sense to ANYONE. All he did was PROVE TO AMERICA just how "CRACKED" he is. I mean I've never in my 74 years heard a more deranged and demented stream of gibberish and ridiculous LIES . He could NOT address any topic, had no ideas, no connection to reality. Nothing he said had a single moment of lucidity, thoughtfulness , meaning or minimally informed rationale.
He's literally a mentally unstable, lunatic and narcissistic sociopathic, MADMAN/ NUTJOB. Sorry folks. The guy has nothing positive to offer. He must be put out to pasture. (and I'm not talking as a "Stud". 🤣
Unfortunately, his willfully blind "loyal" followers and sponsors are unconsciously attracted to his manner, his "strong" presentation of self (vs "weak" others) rather than the more intellectually demanding content, as rambling and loosely associated as that is. Great discussion here!
I'm looking at the unconscious or "process" component of communication in order to fathom the otherwise absurd loyalty of 60M less educated or predatory capitalist Americans, and Tramp is nothing if not a big bully, on which we can agree, right? Every dictator projects such a "big" man presentation of self, right? So, this is Tramp's secret appeal, and Harris did a splendid job of cutting him down to size. Let's hope/pray she can keep it up and we turn this Titanic ship of state around before it is any more too late.
Smokey: More likely a Putinwort.Everyone says that he smells bad and is prickly. Plus this invasive plant is found to be spreading everywhere, including the United Ststes.
I love that you're posting your work/ research into verifiable specifics. I do the same searching and linking for my own need to know the facts. But I, unlike you, I am now an old boomer. A geezer losing my skills at organizing & even remembering what I know.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW GRATEFUL WE AMERICANS ARE TO YOU and others who have picked up the reigns of (TruthTelling) and verifiable proof of FACTS. YOU MATTER to every one of us. Including those that are unaware to realize it YET.
Thank you Professor Reich, but how do we get the economics illiterate public to understand that tariffs are not PAID by foreign governments - they do not pay a dime to us it's like a humongous sales tax is on us, not them.
A flow chart (generally speaking) comes to mind. Telling the story in logical fashion by illustrating reality and showing where the money comes from and where it goes.
“On both occasions, Trump promised to raise tariffs on virtually all imports. He has said he’ll use the revenue to finance child care, combat inflation, pay for a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, and help reserve the dollar’s dominant role in the global economy. “
Apparently, Trump failed Econ 101! Tariffs are a federal sales tax that is passed on to the consumer; they are manufactured inflation that inhibits growth and reduces demand for goods and services. And last I checked, giving away free childcare services is SOCIALISM! Didn’t these guys just call Walz a SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST because he passed a law giving all school kids free lunches? Walz was crucified by MAGA Inc, and is considered either a communist or socialist depending on their definition of the day.
Additionally, Trump doesn’t know the difference between the Current Account Deficit (CAD) and the trade deficit (difference between import/export of good land services). The CAD is the trade deficit plus capital outlays or capital investments overseas. Yet, Trump believes they are one and the same. If he doesn’t understand the problem, he definitely cannot fix the issue.
Bottom line: Trump will do to America what he did to his businesses; run them straight into the ground, after strangling us with excessive debt. Trump has the dubious honor of creating one presidential record: he added a record $8.2 trillion to the national debt, and increased the deficit from $536 billion to $1.88 trillion in just four years. More money spent than Obama or Bush spent in eight years in office.
As to be expected, Trump will reward his billionaire Friends and Donors with jobs in his government where they will have a free reign with minimum accountabilty, if any at all, to further enrich themselves via tax cuts, big government contracts, remove laws and regulations hindering them but are nmeant to protect workers, consumers and the environment. They are eager, as Elon MUsk is showing, to do this even without pay as they will benefit so much more than what is for them a lousy pay. Trump will sit on his golden throne as the great enabler no doubt getting his share. This is nothing new and and has been done so many times before in history and therefore is a very realistic expectation, based on what you can read and hear now.
History also tells us that it will end bad for them through greedy infighting and because ultimately the people will stand up and resist but before that far too many innocent lives will have been lost, vast bamounts of money will have been wasted and assets destroyed. Make sure you keep Trump and his friends out of the WH.
I wonder how long it will take to reduce the lives of enough Americans to actually promote a French-style revolution. It will be MUCH worse (actually un-winnable for the poor) than the French one because of the overwhelmingly greater arms and intelligence-gathering tech of the moneyed class. (Sorry for the dreadful grammar; hope it’s comprehensible despite the phraseology.)
I don't see how America can come out of a depression with 350 million people and no wealth, in fact trillions and trillions of dollars of debt! The right wingers have destroyed America in the name of greed while blaming the liberals.
As I often post, the alternative of fair trade needs to be clearly described as an alternative. Denigrating Hoover/Trump economics will only resonate with. A very few because the is no lived experience of a depression and world war.
Left-wing radio host, Thom Hartmann says these are nothing more than "hoarders." The same kind of psychology that makes ppl want to fill their home with piles of dog poop, old dusty books, unpaid utilities, and broken down house.
But how are we, as Americans approving of this behavior, because this is OUR money floating up to only this group while 120 million of our neighbors struggle to feed ourselves and even find a home to afford?
Rhetorical question.
Too many Americans think they are going to win that next Powerball. Lol.
Really! And who better than a reichwinger takes their gun and “shoots themselves in their own foot,” (and head) & take us all down with them whenever they vote?
OK. I'm going to research this tidbit you sent me. Nobody ever talks about Putin having a boss! I thought he WAS THE BOSS.
I have to wonder how reliable the info you got is—Putin and probably all Russian oligarchs exaggerate. There's so much illegal activity and secrecy with Russians, how does anybody prove their claims?
When you have that much money you have to sync it into so-called legitimate mechanizations. We do business with him every time we order from Amazon, walking to Walmart, buy something from Dick's Sporting Goods, likely patronizing any trans global corporate planet raping conglomeration. He's a major stakeholder in many of them. Obviously under multiple layers of shell constructions
That's the thing…it is hard to nail down the gory truth dealing with a guy like this. No doubt he's stinking rich but hard facts here are elusive. He runs lots of dirty businesses.
From what I can find on the internet, no reports of actual documented trillionaires. Yet.
Many of the oligarchs Russian and otherwise, say, Eric Prince types, I have closer to half 1 trillion and at least one magnitude of capital then Mr. national security threat
There were people in the Reagan era in the appropriate positions warning everyone who had the authority to authorize his neutrality. No one listened. C'est la vie
Professor Reich: trump's open attacks on science -- climate science, the environment, COVID-19 (remember horse wormer and injected bleach were touted as "cures"?) -- are a clear and present danger to the security America and to the health and longevity of its residents. the sheer lunacy of not holding greedy corporations (especially big oil) responsible and liable for cleaning up their messes and leaving those environmental messes to fester for literally DECADES or be cleaned up at the taxpayers' expense is outrageous and indefensible. [think: a toddler forced to clean up big brother's mess before the wee one can go out and play.]
Further, trump's suppression of communications between government public protection agencies and the public is, again, outrageous and indefensible. then there's the worrying lack or diminishment of the nation's food security (PFAS, anyone? or how about pathogenic bacteria-laden fresh foods like meat, eggs and fresh vegetables?) and now, right this very minute, as Hurricane Francine begins to pummel the florida coast, i am left to ponder the availability of paper towels if trump and his brown-nose brigade were in the white house at this time?
i could go on and on and on, as i am sure most of you know by now. as i've said before: please, everyone, just make it stop! Vote Blue up and down the ballot!
I think the tide is turning. Between the excellent debate performance by Vice President Harris, Trump’s glaring blunders and Taylor Swift’s support of Harris, I believe our next President of the United States will be Kamala Harris.
The only question I have after reading your article, Professor Reich, is why in heaven's name are his followers so stupid as to think that what he is selling is a good thing? Obviously, if he were elected, we might as well kiss our great country good-bye! Taking the guardrails away and giving corporations free rein to rape consumers at will in order to line their pockets is so egregious, I am simply at a loss for words! Work hard everybody! We must get Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected so that our Democracy remains! Vote blue, America, up and down the ballot!
It's incredulous that in an ever more complex world anybody could believe fewer guardrails is the answer. If we truly wish for less governance then we have to un-invent most of the trappings and ways of modern life.
An alternative approach might be that those who sign off on deregulation are personally liable for any consequences. That might slow down the eagerness of some to put their name to the removal of protections.
With the ability to hide from any taxes that would help the over health of the country the rich wallow like fatted pigs in the thought of a second Trump Presidency. They treat our economy like a game, where the winners find inventive loopholes that allow the wealthy to escape the need to pay any taxes at all. Trump prides himself in creating the rules of this game, how would his country clubs fare if all the existing members found ways to avoid paying their yearly dues? Reagan's trickledown theory was as pathetic a suggestion as a cow jumping over the moon. The Republicans feel we should be happy and strive to emulate "Little Jackie Paper."
Reich does a solid job here laying out the chaos that is 'Trumponomics,' but let’s be honest, this is just more of the political theater we've come to expect. What we’re seeing is the same broken system being propped up by whichever figurehead distracts the public the best. Trump’s incoherent ramblings are just one part of the show, but if we look deeper, both sides have been serving the same corporate agenda for decades. It’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The real issue is the system itself, not the face they put in front of it.
Really? Moral equivalence between the two parties? Wasting time paying attention to arguably the most weighty election since the Civil War? I disagree completely with the tone of your comment. It preaches passivity and cynicism and hopelessness just when what is needed is the exact opposite- mobilization of effort to defeat the most ruthless antidemocratic, pro-business party in over a century and elect a pro-democratic government that builds on the solid gains against unfettered capitalism achieved under Biden. How you got where you are from Reich's brilliant, pithy analysis is bewildering.
I draw your attention to the Grenfell Tower disaster in London seven years ago. The results of the enquiry are now, finally, in - and they make excoriating reading. Much of the blame is laid at the Tory government's door, due to the mad dash to eliminate almost all regulations. 73 people died.
The difference is...that the Tory party was definitively routed in the recent UK election. Here, despite a scintillating debate performance by VP Harris, we are still looking at the possibility of four more years of government by a mendacious, incoherent, rambling, and yes, let's face it, demented, individual.
First, the Electoral College has to go.....
Good luck getting an amendment getting rid of the Electoral College.
We're getting closer to a quorum of States which want the change.
Are you speaking of the National Popular Vote (NPV)? The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (Explanation). It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes (Status in the states). It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 61 electoral votes.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
Will SCOTUS challenge it?
Last I checked, I think only THREE more states need to choose America over Kakistocracy! Well, three to five.
Thank you for the reminder of that great word and perfect description for the trump era.
Michael, how many states have elected for the change? I believe last I read about it was 24. Is that correct?
Ask Dr. Reich to give us a tutorial. He knows all about it.
Thanks, I'll do that!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Interstate,and%20the%20District%20of%20Columbia.
It wouldn't need an amendment. The Constitution leaves the States free to decide how to cast their votes. A given State could, for example, cast their votes for the winner in its own jurisdiction.
States comprising 209 of the needed 270 Electoral Votes (EV) to win a Presidential election are currently members of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). States comprising an additional 74 EV have passed legislation to enter the NPVIC in at least one of their legislative chambers. These additional states would be sufficient to pass 270 EV (209 + 74 = 283). Having 270 EV among their members will activate the Compact in the following July. Passing U.S. Congressional legislation to endorse the Compact will strengthen its Constitutional status. However, experience with the current totally corrupt Supreme Court, blatantly partisan for the Republican Party, suggests that they might concoct any reason they might imagine to maintain the Republican advantage with the Electoral College by declaring the NPVIC unconstitutional.
This suggests that the need for the Democrats, having gained control of the federal government, to reform the Supreme Court is time sensitive, i.e., before the NPVIC is activated. Obviously, the undemocratic Filibuster in the U. S. Senate will first need to be expunged before anything can be done. The U. S. Constitution in Article III specifies lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices, but as several people have recently pointed out, the Constitution does NOT specify that all of them will necessarily qualify to vote. Congress could legislate that only the nine most recent Justices would ordinarily vote. The emeritus members would undertake other supporting judicial tasks, including temporarily filling in for a recusing Justice in some particular case before the Court. The legislation would specify that one new Court member would be appointed in each two-year Congressional term, so after each eighteen-year period the voting members would have been replaced. The current corrupt Court might temporarily delay the implementation of the NPVIC, but their time would rapidly pass.
Thank you, Don. That answered quite a few questions I had. So, basically, we need a Democratic House and Senate in order to reform the Supreme Court. I would hope that one of those reforms is term limits for the justices. Also, a very strict code of ethics with severe penalties (like being disrobed) for noncompliance.
Peggy Freeman, now that's an awful picture of the awful being disrobed, literally. My mind got rid of that definition of disrobing really fast and went to your intended definition.
Not really Peggy see my response to Don.
Here is the appropriate section (1) of Article III Don.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It does not say that Federal Judges serve for a lifetime band it does say that they hold their office during good Behaviour.
The interpretation of the Art III, Section 1, that you state is the common interpretation and is the source of the troubles with SCOTUS..
Alito and Thomas have been proven to not behaved and are corrupt, The Senate, not the house, approved their appointment and that which given can taken away, the Senate can remove them,if they have the guts.
Thank you for the clarification, William. Our Senate, like the Roman senate, is supposed to act as bulwark against autocracy. Tragically, Republican Senators betrayed us and the Constitution when they failed to impeach Trump. The Roberts Court presidential immunity ruling was another betrayal. The Constitution, and our democracy, are in peril.
William, my statement does lack precision. As you point out, Article III says "during good Behavior" and not "for life". The historical effect has been a life term or a term until voluntary retirement: the impeachment process has been habitually underused. "During good Behavior" might suggest a removement process distinct from and with different standards than impeachment, but that not becoming the practice was perhaps established in 1805 with the attempted removal of Associate Justice Samuel Chase (not to be confused with Chief Justice Salmon Chase). President Jefferson accused him of blatant partisanship, which might have become a standard for removal for lack of "good behavior", but he was acquitted. That may have set the precedent that the impeachment process that applies to any government official was what lack of good behavior meant in the case of Justices.
With that clarification, I still find the recent suggestion by several writers that "hold their office" does not necessarily imply exercising the voting aspect of the Justices' tasks. Converting them to a non-voting emeritus status (my terminology) after eighteen years does not explicitly contradict the text of Article III, so it offers a means of reforming the Court without a Constitutional Amendment.
The Costitution of the United States demands to be FOLLOWED. Not "interpreted" leave that to the charlatans and their scripturen
The House must impeach them first.
For that to happen they would pre-requisite we need a legitimate opposition.
The current SCOTUS is corrupt--and illegitimate. It is illegitimate because it has been captured by a political party engaged in insurrection. If we fail to vote this party out of power we shall lose most of what has been gained after 1776. Project 2025 is their dream.
A given.
As if the Democratic Party offers something that the founders and framers would not have thrown the tea in the harbor over? Stop. I mean, unless you want to argue there are "levels of" moral bankruptcy....
Don, thank you for your incisive analysis. Front of mind is that the major hurdle to enacting vanguard legislation that you suggest, is the presence of about half of the legislators in the U.S. Congress. These are the corrupted trump (r)epublicans who have already sacrificed their souls to their lawless god. The only party left with a measure of sanity needs to maintain the Executive and regain control of the Legislative branch of government. Else the monomaniacal drumpf and his cadres will see to the destruction of 250 years of positive efforts by decent people to maintain a republic. The grass-roots vote needs to turn out like never before.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/10/trump-gop-support-jd-vance-2024/679564/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
The entirety of Congress aside from the dozen or so democratic members who are true progressive and Bernie are completely illegitimate there representing no one but the donor class. You are suffering from the illusion of choice.
There is no party left of sanity. Just fucking stop the bullshit blind tribal allegiance is the vehicle that usher us to this Third World shit hole.
The soul focus of the electric should be ending big and dark money and removing barriers concerning access to the ballot. Without those two prerequisites, none of the other 1000 things that need fixed, tweeked, or burn it to the Ground can be properly addressed.
A disadvantage of the NPV is that it's not a binding commitment. A state can withdraw from the Compact. So it's life depends on the makeup of the state.
The majority of states are red.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The same states that are responsible for the Electoral Vote, the 3/5ths of a human clause and 2 senators per state will not sign the National Popular Vote, for the same reasons that there is an electoral college,and 2 senators per state.
Not sure whatsoever.
No it does not. The only single thing the constitution leaves to the states specificallyW the location of the Senate polling place. That is it. A simple legislative mandate of electors awarded on the ratio of popular vote would make the electoral college legitimate and balance out the unfair and unconstitutional small state leverage. The Senate rules and make up of the body account for the situation already. Winner take all small state far undue influence.
That is not how it works. You would need a constitutional amendment. Just as well, State like Idaho are not going to be ruled by NY and CA. You would have civil war. States would not give up their voice and be ruled by major coastal populations centers. You people are little tyrants who cry about Democracy then in private discuss how to rule.
This is actually the whole point of the Senate. To provide equal representation to states, regardless of population, in the senior legislative body. The EC is a vestige of the elitist views of the Framers of the Constitution who were afraid of having a President elected via direct democratic voting. And the U.S. is stuck with this relic of an institution which continues to befuddle the rest of the democratic countries in the world.
The Senate is NOT part of the executive branch. The framers knew that state would not join the UNITED STATES if they had no representation for the executive branch. You would have a situation where NY and CA ruled every election and smaller states would have no voice or representation at the executive level. Just as well, we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! We are a REPUBLIC. Majority rules is not how things work here, hence the EC. I don't even think you know how the EC works.
Not true. It has been completely bastardized from the original construction. It was implemented to be a firewall. Needed now more than ever. to maintain that intention, we need it to be filled with honest brokers, obviously and the awarding of electors by a ratio of popular vote. Just stop. Speaking on topics you don't know anything about is always a terrible optic.
You are correct in that it tips the scales towards the small states which was already dealt with and given a level playing field by the make up apparatus of the Senate.
It's called the National Popular Interstate Vote compact and lacks just about 38 votes to be enacted. And it's passed at least one chamber in enough states to effectively end the electoral college
Look at status here
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
A political football to miss direct you from the truth and having a conversation about a constitutional legislative mandate
Wake up people we do not want to end the electoral college. It, if populated by honest brokers with the constitutional intention of fulfilling its job is an important firewall. Obviously, as is it has failed us many times. In 2000, and 2016 for example. it should stay. The only thing that should change beside the constituency of honest brokers is a legislative mandate from Washington DC to award electors on the ratio of popular vote. Winner take all is bogus AF and in no way would have been part of the construction from the framers.
Like finding AC in Hades!🥵😡💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
If only…….
It won't be '4 more years'. As Harris noted, Trump has said he will 'terminate the constitution'.
It's not an empty threat, as the Supreme Court just ruled that any crime a president commits is not a crime.
Trump would be able to do anything, with no checks, balances, or accountability.
Let’s keep it civil and informative. SCOTUS fid not rule that the President could commit any crime and not be prosecuted. They ruled that POTUS was immune when performing official acts but the limits of that immunity were not articulated leaving it to the lower courts to decide and SCOTUS to act as the final.
It is or should be obvious that Congress or Legislatures cannot impinge on Executive duties. It should be equally obvious that the founders never imagined that a President should be compelled to break laws to perform his/her duties. Yet here we are with SCOTUS taking a case that should never have been taken (certiorari)).
'SCOTUS acting as the final' is the potential problem, I think. I am concerned they will use a lot of leeway in how they define 'official acts'.
Like a squid, Justice Roberts muddied the waters to escape responsibility.
SCOTUS has become a tool of the Republican Party, whose goal is the implementation of Project 2025.
If you are trying to defend the indefensible here, namely leading legitimacy to the present parity of a supreme court, did a fine job.
John Citoyen, I second CLS comment. what is and is not an official act will be determined by Congress or SCOTUS and the President in his official capacity can sign Executive Orders or order the death of anyone.
In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
The precedent has been set.
I failed to mention that 1) any president could probably order the execution of anyone anywhere simply because the tools are at his/her disposal. 2) the level of restraint a president might exercise is at his discretion but it certainly helps to have a rational set of advisors 3) I don’t have concerns about Biden or Harris, but Trump is not likely to have rational advisors and it’s almost guaranteed they will test whatever limits SCOTUS may have had in mind. It’s a dangerous guessing game to be sure.
Good point, however, the circumstances. surrounding the killing of Al - Aulaqi et al were somewhat unique and probably do not extend to killing anyone anywhere at anytime especially on US soil.
Since the case was dismissed, it does not create or amplify any legal principles that could be useful precedent. It does, however, raise some questions about the contours of presidential power. Even though courts like to claim that they do not resolve political issues, this case was likely dismissed because the political winds favored dismissal
John, the SCOTUS ruling changed the game, and considering the ideological drift of the High Unholy Roman Catholic Six, can one expect anything,
They did not I think provide any clarity as what is or is not an official act by a sitting president. Trump claims as did Nixon that anything and everything is official if the President does it. Even cheating at golf.
If you think the constitution has any bearing on today's federal government, you have zero knowledge of the body politic. Get a grip
Awful
But would a popularly elected Supreme Court as they are proposing in Mexico be better? Don't think so.
I don't think we'd need to go that far. I do think it's reasonable to impeach members of the Court if they engage in corruption, which would -- or at least should -- include rulings that go against the Constitution, like the immunity ruling. Lifetime tenure on the bench should not be a free pass to do anything they want.
Art III, Section 1 of the constitution, does not say that federal judges serve for life or have no term limits, it says that they serve during good behavior.
The Senate, not the house, approves their appointment, and he that giveth can taketh away, there is no need for impeachment (which involves the house, as their is no procedure for impeachment of judges in the constitution or law),. The Senate confirms appointments and the Senate can revoke the confirmation.
Article Ii section 4 covers impeachment of President,VP and all civil officers. That includes federal judges. The process is identical. The senate CANNOT revoke confirmation as you claim. Also, the term “ during good behavior” simply means that bad behavior is impeachable. Article III section 2 clause 2 is far more useful in dealing with the current group. Congress can change the rules for all matters not under “original jurisdiction”. That could mean even limiting what cases it takes and who gets to preside.
First, Trump has to be unelected
Trump with cement overshoes and then to the deep Atlantic ocean.
FT6 phone banks Today.
https://www.mobilize.us/ft6/?q=phone%20banks&tag_ids=20038
No. A ridiculous suggestion. Not possible in a lifetime. That would enter and constitutional amendment that has not only achieve the required 37 states approval but passing by Congress. A legislative mandate of the ratio of popular vote awarding of electorates, the proper policy. It's functioning under honest brokerage, it is a very important firewall. Failing us obviously in 2016.
No, it's not ridiculous. And the Electoral College doesn't actually serve as any kind of firewall. If Republican electors weren't willing to vote against their party's nominee in 2016 despite the obvious threat he posed, there's no reason to expect electors in the future to do any better. To be sure, totally eliminating the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment would be extremely difficult (though if it ever becomes possible, it should be done). But as Michael mentioned above, it is possible to effectively eliminate the Electoral College as a factor if enough states agree to require that their state's electors vote for the national popular vote winner. There's a movement to do just that called the National Popular Vote compact, and it's just a few states away from getting a majority.
Another option that I've seen mentioned is getting the Supreme Court to rule that the current winner take all system for awarding electoral votes violates the rights of those who vote for the losing candidate - which in fact it effectively does, as their votes end up counting for nothing. This would require all states to award electors in proportion to the percentage of the state's popular vote that each candidate received. But such a ruling would obviously only come from a completely different Supreme Court than the one we have now.
I do prefer option #2: The elimination of the "winner takes all" system.
The Founding Fathers, who deep at heart didn't really trust "We The People" to make a good decision decided on a compromise [and now a compromisED system] to elect a President:
Yes, the People will have a vote in electing their President but, just in case, let's have folks who know better ["Electors", CHOSEN BY THEIR POLITICAL PARTY] to be able to 'moderate' [read "modify"] the will of the rabble.
Let's face it: These electors have no other qualification besides being ardent supporters of their Party, by hook or by crook: The honor is bestowed upon you if you rake in enough money and are totally "in the bag" with your Party. But partisanship is precisely what's killing our system.
Instead, as Eric was saying, if, in each State, the delegation was awarded according to the Popular vote, then the over all "will of the People" would be respected.
Look at my State: Wisconsin: We are very much a 'purple State', a very near 50/50 state and we have 10 delegates. but we are a "winner takes all" State. That is very unfair to the 50% of the voters who chose the guy who lost: They end up NOT having ANY representation to carry their voice and the winning Party can run roughshod over their wishes.
But only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule: Their delegates are awarded proportionately. That is a more representative system, a more just system, in which everyone has a voice.
You would believe that those who want to keep the 'filibuster system' so that 'the minority doesn't get crushed by the majority', would be in favor of proportional representation, wouldn't you? Alas, no.
Factions are such that if it helps your Party, you are for it. I'm reminded of George Washington's warning:
George Washington warned of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his Farewell Address as President of United States. “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”
But it's important what kind of proportional system is used. The electoral votes have to be awarded based on the total popular votes for the entire state. No other way of doing it would solve the problem. We don't want to do it like it is done in Nebraska and Maine, as in those cases the electoral votes are based on House districts, which in many states (including Wisconsin) have been heavily gerrymandered by Republicans. And they'd go even further with the gerrymandering if electoral votes are awarded by House district everywhere.
Eric, I believe no matter what we do, republicans are going to find a way to cheat. That's what they do.
Good point! It should be based on the total State population. It might be difficult, though because the candidate do compete in pre-arranged districts which, as you point out are heavily gerrymandered.
And with this corrupt SCOTUS that won't lift a finger to undo gerrymandering, it will take a while, but at least, there would be some districts in each State that would be awarded to the losing Party.
Today's framework of the electoral college has nothing to do with the Framers intentions. It is heavily bastardized. The only way the founders would keep it as is is the aforementioned policy of doing away with the winner take all award of electors. It does nothing but heavily tip the skills to order small states. They had already even them by the make up of the Senate.
With a 2025 Congress (Idaho believes that 100%), we'll get the Illiberal Democracy Trump and Orban are seeking.
And takes WAAAAY to long
Your contention that there's no expectation for good government because it's filled with dishonest brokers is absolutely beyond moronic. So as Congress and the executive, the supreme court. Abolish them also? Get a grip.
The weak link in this chain is obviously "we the people" we suck. We are in no way, shape or form performing our #Duty.
We are completely derelict. I appreciate you providing proof of theory and concept.
Just because it doesn't doesn't mean that it is supposed to be that way. FFS sakes United States Congress does not represent "we the people" either. Do you think we should abolish? Sit down and be quiet
A thing is only ridiculous when it is ridiculed.
Trump supporters think it's okay. They won't know they don't like it until it's implemented.
Gordon Hoffman: It is a good thing that Trump supporters are a dwindling minority. With all the threats to our votes, this could help. But even if they "win" , they will be losers. This is the United States 🇺🇸. Of America.. Imperfect , but strong willed. They would have to kill every last human, and then they would not have US. The goose that laid the truly Golden egg
No they would not. We were just bitch about it on Twitter like we do now. Christ there is no line. Our federal government could be putting minorities in concentration camps, shooting LGBQT peeps in the street for a broadcast entertainment production and open Lee submitting bids for children and all we would do about it is bitch on the worldwide Tik Tok machine. Just like we do now. The constitution was completely abandon in 2010 actually before that. Whenever the "Heller" decision was.
Dwindling minority??? I took 3rd place in the Washington State US Senate race. I had life long Patty voters come to me saying they jumped ship for the first time. RFK didn't endorse Biden. Keep coping. Trump is going to win in the biggest landslide America has EVER seen. Then in 2028 I will get elected and we will take full power. Then guess what? I am going to call for an audit of the government to set a 5% reduction in waste goal to offset exempting the middle class from paying income taxes. The Horror. The middle class being able to keep their money. You truly are unhinged and should stop reading this garbage. Maybe actually go to a Trump rally and see for yourself. Or you can stay in your little SM bubble and pretend you are winning.
I'm sorry I don't speak nebulous gibberish. Do you want to translate that into any of the Romance languages or Latin?
Num Latine loqui vis?
The thing is that Wyoming has the same number of votes in the senate as California. Unless they make cows registered voters in Wyoming populations will never be represented.
Democrats can move there and take over!
Same with the Dakotas. W. (By God) Virginia.
They will by the legislative mandate demanding electors from the electoral college be awarded on the ratio of popular vote.
Oh FFS there's a measure that will work
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Completely unneeded and not binding. The normal legislative mandate system applies here. A simple two sentence in perpetuity law of the awarding of electors on a ratio of popular vote basis from Congress and the executive is all that is needed. The constitution specifically in pointedly enumerates the only single Thing that Congress does not have power to regulate concerning elections on the state level is the location of the Senate contest polling place.
The consent of allowing the document to be "interpreted" has consequences..... all of them bad.
The Constitution of the United States is meant to be FOLLOWED.
It is worse than that Michael. The RNC has trained 100,000 poll watchers (many of whom will have guns) to station at vital election districts. Republican legislatures have passed over 100 Voter Suppression laws, and voter registration lists have been scrubbed, Georgia has passed a law that enables county election offiicials to delay certifyiing results if there is a complaint. Steve Bannon said that they have drawn up law suits challenging results in swing states, they are in the hands of lawyers who will be par,ed on court house steps, an fake electors will have been signed up, and parked on Capitol steps, so that what happened in Minn last time doesn't happen again (real electorsgot into the state capitol ahead of the fakes.
They are also going to challenge the Vice President, if she wins the election, certifying her own election, and that will go to SCOTUS, and need I tell you of the result. If the election isn't resolved, then Congress will pick the winner, and each state gets one vote, and their are more red states than blue states.
If Trump gets in America will become North Korea.
Remember Mao and Stalin? All "strong" men, admired by millions. Oh, how Trump envies them!
A fair comparison, given that both countries have nukes, neither country will have elections, Trump will be only too happy to take on the role of Dear Leader and pass it on to Don Jr. when he dies.
First, we must register people and get out the vote.
In my opinion, he isn't demented in the sense of forgetful, but he lacks decisional capacity. He's certainly a personality disorder, we can split hairs over whether it's narcissistic or borderline, but it's incurable relies on enablers. A swarm of fleas and ticks make a living off him when no serious investor ever has. Elon Musk owns him now.
PS we are having this chat on X.
He uses strong psychopath behaviors.
How about public financing of elections? This is priority number one!
As reported in the Guardian, new PM Keir Starmer has a stock answer during PM question time, 22 billion pounds, the budget hole inherited from a completely inept Tory party. One similarity between us and them, both the Tories and Republicans are completely bereft of anyone who can remotely lead them. Not only is there no bench strength, there is no bench.
In other words: A Kakistocracy, or rule by the least qualified. One would be hard-pressed to find someone in this flourishing country LESS able than bunkerboy or musk. They are two FAILED businessmen who ruin EVERYTHING they touch!
Remember when Twitter wasn't COMPLETE garbage? How about trump stea-oh wait.
I wish it would only be four more years, but I have my doubts.
Too many willfully ignorant people in the US!
These Old Agencies, like the FDA, the SEC, and the NLRB... Were the result of Disasters in which Thousands Died, or became Impoverished.... Unfettered Capitalism makes a Few Rich, and Most Poor...
…and kills a fair number.
I agree, Smokey. Americans are finally waking up to the problem of these mass shootings though I doubt very much will be done to fix that problem. Also, this election has opened quite a few eyes to the danger we are facing with the orange man. This didn't happen overnight, it has been building for decades and if we don't stop it now, we will have a really bad problem!
We all have frontal lobes.
Alas, Daniel, frontal lobes can become perverse. It's a very human problem.
Using a gamma knife, does not require cracking the skull.
True!😥😥😥😥😥
George Alden, What exactly is wrong with mRNA vaccines, in your opinion?
"Corporate entities" (a.k.a. "corporations") which are regulated by government do of necessity interact with their regulators and lobby legislators. They always will. We can change the personnel in charge of relating and legislating, and possibly come up with different solutions, but they will still face the same set of problems.
Terrible and entirely predictable. Here in Northern Ireland a Westminster politically supported (primarily via malign neglect) duopoly has overseen the environmental disaster of the killing, through the unregulated agricultural toxic waste disposal, of one of Europe’s largest fresh water lakes, Lough Neagh. A lake that supplies 40% of our drinking water. Still nothing being done about this disaster. No one here expects any progress before we are allowed Irish reunification by Westminster and full environmental regulatory alignment with the EU.
Wow, I went and read about Lough Neagh and it's an unbelievable mess. To say nothing of its not only being privately owned and protected by some kind of immunity that applies to royal wasters, and the titled family that owns the Lough seems especially nuts, though not at all out of line with America's increasingly empowered elite. I can see why this example came to mind. It's incredible in its stupidity and needlessness.
Nobody should be allowed to 'own' a lake that provides 40% of drinking water, that's just crazy.
This kind of destructive ecological ignorance and concomitant political and financial power abuses seem to be ubiquitous. So hard and exhausting to fight against. It stinks. Quite literally in the tragic case of a once beautiful natural Irish gem, Lough Neagh.
Thank you for your support ☘️
Monnina, so sorry. Many around the world feel your pain. We're connected in spirit by our experiences, of the effects of some awful, absurdly wealthy people owning some absurdly awful politicians. The insanity is rampant. Sending you hope and solidarity.
Many, many thanks. And - right back at ya 🐈⬛🐾
Monnina, thanks!
Monnina, that's terrible! I imagine you feel as frustrated as we do right now. Sometimes, it feels like nothing you do is enough and no one will help you make the change necessary to fix it!
Thank you. The rampant financial and political corruption and consequent life destruction is very exhausting.
It doesn't seem that a situation that bad could continue much longer. The American Revolution was fought over less dire circumstances than that. I am worried about what will happen if enough people are pushed to the edge of survival.
Monnina, Lough Neagh is off topic for a discussion of American politics ( imho ) but I'd like some more info: can you suggest a reliable online source that explains the problem and the political obstacles to a solution?
Train loads of nebulous gibberish are rarely the solution.
Very informative and alarming post, Sean. Thank you. Supports the notion that trump (with his MAGA allies and whoever unseen moneyed powerful others) have a plan to seize power and do not care about the democratic processes and election outcome or even the appearance of our democracy being taken. The coup looks like a "certainty." Trump is merely president but those invisible others will run the show/government. That's my conjecture, of course.
Was clear at the time of the fire. The time lapse of the investigation is unfortunate.
oh for sure. I mention it as an inevitable consequence of a bonfire of red tape (absolutely no pun intended).
And obstruction by the greedy elite
This is a ridiculous statement. Most of the blame lies with the US manufacturer of the insulated panels used on an exterior renovation. The architects specified the material based on a fire rating provided by the manufacturer. It was stated as fire resistant but this was due to improper (or deceptive) testing practices. I'm an architect so I am familiar with this.
It was based on downright, proven lies by the manufacturer. I hope they are prosecuted and imprisoned.
We have had 13 years of government aimed at making life easier for the big money, and to hell with the rest of us. Leaving the EU was another step in this deregulation process and it has made us poorer and done nothing else. The right wing are nothing but liars. and con men
And just look at the mess they've left.
Regulations have their place, if enforced, they often keep people alive, i.e, air plane maintenance regulations, building codes, electrical code regulations.
Of course they do. I don't think the UK government got rid of any aircraft regulations, although I put nothing past them.
Good regulatory governance might be a problem. But it needs competence and expertise.
Then the enigma: why is the Republican party controlled by stupidity?
After a few classes of economics, every student can see that the import tariff is not paid to the U.S., but paid for by the consumers. It is unbelievable that millions of educated Americans even listen to this nonsense.
I took two classes in economics in college. They were smaller classes maybe 20 students. Economics is NOT taught in most public schools, I agree, it should be, And it's not just the MAGA crowd that buys into trump's bullshit - he doesn't understand it himself - but neiother do the majority of Americans.
Fay, something everyone should be reminded of about economics is that it is not a science. The wealthy have used certain economists to promote their agendas with the help of the media to gaslight the population into believing BS like "trickle down." Those economists bask in the glory with their Nobel prizes and all the way to the bank with money from book sales and lecture fees. They are dangerously in positions where they are capable of manipulating the economy for their bankster friends and the wealthy.
Absolutely true. There have been untold economic theories over the centuries - Adam Smith, Hayek (Austrian), classical, Keynes, neoclassical, monetarism, to name a few. I'm not an expert on any, but as with religion they can't all be right. Any teaching course is going to promote one, probably wrongly. The only person I've seen take anything approaching a scientific view is Prof. Steve Keen - he's on here, check him out. What really needs teaching is critical thinking.
Rick Jones, teaching critical thinking and teaching about the common good, and our interconnectedness to our fellow citizens and all of nature. That we do not live in a silo. Teaching that we are interconnected with what transpires throughout the world and increasingly also, in the space beyond our planet is important too.
Yes M Tree: A really excellent Economics class would/could/should explain the interconnectedness of all the concepts you mentioned.
dnkarr, if only we (those powered not just by self-interest) were in charge of the world. Ahhh what a dream! Increasing those "we" in charge is the goal.
I agree Gloria they are in positions where they are capable of manipulating the economy and they will manipulate it into the grave, and 350 million Americans will starve possibly!
Is that "Bankster" friends or "gangster" friends? Seems more like the latter when you recall the lawlessness that existed in the USA's initial takeover of the country from the Native Americans. What gave us the right to do so?
Maria Miller, nothing. It was a strong conditioned belief that white was superior and more civilzed that caused so much suffering. There, were of course, white people who rejected that as nonsense, but they didn't have the most power, so they couldn't stop it on a widespread scale.
True. But economics does provide an analytical framework for thinking about ideas in both micro and macroeconomic contexts as does political science and social science. It should be respected in the same vein.
Republicans are anti science and have often used quack scientists and quack economists to argue against sound analysis and facts. Even though Milton Friedman received accolades for his work it represents a turning point in economics theory that, even though academically sound has since also turned on us. What seems to work best is to apply the right theory at the right time .
Few of us know when our economics wizards are acting rationally because they tend to treat their preferred theories as universally applicable.( for example, Europe suffered longer and more intensely than did the US in the great recession. The reason was that Germany and the EU stuck to “Austrian School” beliefs in austerity which generally extended the recession. The US got back to Keynesian theory and recovered more quickly. On the side, few if us even knew that Alan Greenspan was a more radical “free marketer” i.e. a libertarian. You can’t get much farther into economics la la land than that. Hood thing he left and left it to Bernanke!
But even Alan Greenspan had principles. The same cannot be said about Trump supporters.
If you mean the $ supporters and those in
MAGA gear, i tend to agree. But I don’t think most of the rest are malevolent. Probably misinformed and/ or willfully ignorant.
Gloria J. Maloney, thanks for pointing it out that the economists we often hear from have been twisted by education bias propagated by oligarch donations to their college programs.
An important instance of this phenomenon is revealed by Nancy McLean's Democracy in Chains, a very good book.
Victor Kamendrowsky, thanks for the recommendation!
Well said. I was taught economics in high school by a right-winged fanatic of Ayn Rand's stupid Atlas Shrugged. But later my curiosity led me to Adam Smith, Paul Krugman, and of course, Robert Reich. And you know the biggest teacher of true economics? History. The Guilded Age, The Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes and The New Deal.
true economics" in terms of what has worked to benefit the middle and lower classes. Of course, there are wealthy who have sought to debunk past history (Milton Friedman) in favor of less regulation, less taxes on the wealthy. But we've seen where that leads: more wealth accumulation, more power by a few, and less and less available for the middle class and poor. History is the best teacher. That's one reason history is so important to learn. Yet, it is often poorly taught or not taking seriously.
Yeah, that's why it's called the dismal science. If this goes up then that goes down. But why. The best example is the stock market, the original video fantasy game. Nothing is actually made, bought or sold except fantasies and rumors. I understand comparatively unfettered people being puzzled, angry and afraid. So they cling to reassuring nonsense. Gen Zs are now saying it's stupid to buy a house...ever....because in the end, the mortgage is just paying the bank and you have nothing at the end because the rates are so high. True. Explained to me by several nice, middle class, recent college graduates.
Fay, I understand what you write, but the explanation is not enough. How can this horrendous BS be a central element in Trumponomics? Are Americans really this stupid? Let us think about the emotions and the rationality. Trump is the master of the underbelly and his defeat by Harris in the debate does not mean the same for the election.
Dad always said "never discount stupidity as a reason." After nearly 70 years on the planet, life has never disproved his statement. As a sidenote--my sibling and I have a running disagreement--I contend that 'stupid' is infinite and he doesn't agree. :D
tecolote42, thanks the laugh, wondering if stupidity is infinite.
All tRUMP knows is what his donors want.
So it seems, since his proposals and arguments are an incoherent jumble of statements.
Tariffs are specifically designed to allow domestic manufacturers and farmers to compete with cheaper imported goods. In other words they are guaranteed, by design, to cause inflation. Sometimes targeted tariffs are in the national interest, to allow domestic production to continue or start up in the face of foreign competition, for supply chain security as well as defense capability, or to counteract unfair subsidization of foreign competitors. But adding a 20% tariff on all imports is a recipe for short term hyper inflation in sectors where there's no domestic capability or available capacity. If tariffs "work" by encouraging consumption of goods produced in the US, they will eventually generate zero income. Not a sustainable tax policy.
When Trump imposed a tariff on Chinese goods China retaliated by imposing a tax on American agricultural products. Trump had to bail out US farmers with subsidies. US taxpayers ended paying for this experiment, and now this moron is proposing more and higher tariffs. Go figure!
That's a prime example of the futility of tariffs as an economic (not political) tool. All tariffs will do is cause a trade war, which will (depending on the combatants) end up in retaliatory tariffs, WTO/NAFTA tribunals and judgements, and in the end, cost consumers more. The only justification for a tariff is to protect particular industries critical to the overall security of the state. That is a justifiable political rationale, but not an economic one, and it won't make goods and services cheaper.
A tariff can also serve as a fiscal tool, an excise tax. Libertarians want to eliminate the personal income tax and replace it with sales taxes, a tariff would be one of them. What Trump proposes is his typical hyperbole, evidently meant to excite his base.
Tariffs are a terrible idea if you are intent upon being a capitalist macro economic sovereign. The entire mechanism of capitalism is defined by an unfettered true free market along with thoughtfully and placed strictly enforced consumer protections. The government should have no sway in any market.
If it's not obvious that we are an example of my contention, you really don't get it. The only free market in America is the farmers market on Wednesday evenings and Saturday mornings at the park. We have not undergone inflation since the 70s. We have been victims of endless antitrust violations.
You are not kidding.
Well said
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yet it isn't that hard to explain China has been able to "'dump" very cheap products on our market by using [and abusing] their people, paying them very low wages. It is, after all, a COMMUNIST Country.
Over here, folks [like Ron Johnson, for one] felt that it was great to be able to procure goods at a lower price by exporting jobs: You get to be the guy who bring in cheap stuff for the masses *AND*, more importantly, you break the back of American Unions, who are a thorn in the side of Corporations such as his. 'Win-win". After that, you just have to just vilify folks who can't get a job and poo-poo a system that gives food stamps to 'lazy people'.
So we can import good for very cheap. Trump says: "The Chinese have been eating our lunch",[which is true, thanks to folks like him, BTW] so let's impose tariffs.
Who pays the tariffs? In a first move, those who import goods. And to whom does the money go? the American Government. Which will be OK when HE is the Government, I guess. "l'état c'est moi" said Louis XIV. [And soon, perhaps, Trump the First!]
Anyway, in a second move, do you think that the importers are going to eat the loss? Nay, nay. They always pass it on who? The consumer: That's you and me! That's how WE end up paying these tariffs.
But that's not the only damage: If WE raise tariffs, Communist China will retaliate by raising tariffs on the goods that they import from us/US.
Who is that going to hurt? Well, our exporting sector, that's who. Our farmers won't be able to sell their wheat, beef, ginseng etc. over there. [Communist China can get that from Canada, Argentina etc. until we come to our senses and drop the idiotic policy].
The last thing we should wish for is a Tariff War.
Agree except there are no Communists in China. All that is called Communist is not. Read Karl Marx. China, North Korea and Russia are brutal dictatorships plain and simple, NOT the Marxist theory about governmental "evolution" through one stage. Corrupt, authoritarian regimes propped up by oligarchs in Russia and a bit less so in China, and not at all so in North Korea where there is nothing that isn't owned by Kim Inc. Say it again FBO the GOP, there are no Communists anymore.
And every factory in China has within it a Communist Party member who observes and reports.
I don’t think any of the former communist regimes fit the Marx definition. The Communist Chines Party is still alive and well.
One does not preclude the other: they can be communist [which they still call themselves,] and *also* be a dictatorship: Says the Wiki:
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC), is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Under the leadership of Mao Zedong, the CCP emerged victorious in the Chinese Civil War against the Kuomintang.
In the broad lines, I still agree with you: Karl Marx would be astonished to look at China today.
Similarly, many a democracy is a democracy in name only, like the "Democratic Republic of Korea"
I found this article more eye-opening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government
Agree. But the strength of the dictatorship relies on an effective party membership. It’s not a pure police state.
This has always been true of “Communist” countries. True Marxist policies were never put in place. It was always about power and control.
Your analysis is correct. Given that so much comes from China, Americans would need to do without or pay higher prices. Maybe not 100% of the tariff cost since importers may be able to get price reductions from manufacturers but that is not likely. And there will be US importers lobbying to get exemptions which Trump might just give so long as he gets something in return.
Stop offshore our jobs!!!!
Yes, but that is precisely what Trump is proposing!
The stupid statement that tariffs are paid by other countries must be publicly debunked.
It's easy to see how a huge body of voters might not understand it, nor how tariffs, as Reich reminds us: SPUR INFLATION BY PUSHING PRICES UPWARD.
Trump is epicenter of oligarchic malevolence. I’ve often wondered how much of the problem he really is. What concerns me most about Trump is that he has no principles or morals to keep him in line. He’s all ego but with relatively little knowledge. He tried staffing the Whitehouse and his cabinet with smart people who many thought would keep him under control. Given a second term, he will staff with sycophants, quacks and malevolent manipulators. Foreign policy will depend on who is lining his pockets or boosting his ego. That does not bode well for the future of democracy.
John, agreed. I bought the book about his first term, written by Anonymus. It is written with cautious restraint, but you can see what his second term will be.
The biggest problem in America today is the Republican Party that continues to support Trump’s ridiculous agenda when they all know he’s a novice who knows nothing about how to run a government! I told my wife when Trump was elected, by the minority, in 2016, that he would destroy the Republican Party! He thinks running the country is just another business to enhance his own interests! You are exactly right Professor, that regulations are designed to protect us from greedy corporations who couldn’t care less about the environment or the average American.
Yes, DJT tried to run the USG as one of his Properties... The Results, over $6,000,000,000,000 in new National Debt... Didn't the "Fabulously Successful Businessman", Declare Bankruptcy six times?
By Truth Social shall ye know him.
It's closer to 8 trillion with 4 trillion more coming in the next six years due to decreased revenue in federal receipts because of tax breaks to the ultra wealthy.
Yes Keith, all agreed, but how can any Republican with a healthy mind accept this childish nonsense? Please help me to understand millions of your fellow country men.
I think the healthy mind is where you don't understand the Republicans. They were raised to think irrationally and by God that is what they are going to do!
Lying and stealing is their "game".
Tom van Doormaal ; The profit motive notwithstanding , look at the many high profile Republicans who have endorsed Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. The Lincoln Project have as well. Even the likes of Dick Cheney. They see that destroying Democracy and supporting fascism is not sustainable for anything good ; unless you want a system like Putin and his small circle of loyalists have, or the same thing with Kim Jon Un , Victor Orban or any other dictator. Fascism is not great for much of anything, especially free enterprise.
If you think they are actually opponents in real life you are missing the entire picture you don't see what you're looking at. They're completely bipartisan behind closed doors. They are partners in a trans global criminal syndicate. They have the same donors, eat at the same restaurants, belong to the same clubs, have the same interests. You are suffering from an illusion of choice.
Laurie, but look at these polls...The high profilr Republicans give some hope, but there still are millions of Trump supporters...
Polls are owned , most likely most of them by the wealthy who want tax breaks and subsidies. Remember the red wave predicted by polls back in the mid terms? Fool me once....
Laurie, if the support of Trump is overestimated, it would make me less nervous, but I'm not sure...
Tom Van Doormaal: Remember that those who own the media: even the "liberal " leaning media, control the message. They 'massage' it. Sometimes subtly. Then there is the fact that the things not covered are a glaring omission. Look at the way tRUMP got 9 minutes more speech time in the debate: despite the "mute button" capability on the microphones. But since he won a coin toss he also got the last word: even when he went over on the two minute time limit.Maybe that is why he said he may not be interested in another debate. Next time there may not be a chance to get the last word in such an unfair way.
Tom Van Doormaal: We shall see how the voters vote: Hopefully. I'm thinking that most are on to him by now. Even those who live in red states who have loved ones who died because of poor response to Early Deadly Covid viruses. Or the lies that injecting bleach would cure or prevent illness. Or the banning of masks. I think even the ones who were in his thrall completely would have been upset to see their children harassed because they wore masks. Or they , the parents, we're threatened, or even attacked because they were following the advice of actual medical doctors and health authorities instead of a twisted power mad tyrant wanna be.
Well, Tom, the US was born in violence. Native Americans were slaughtered and are still some of the poorest compatriots we have. People from Africa were forcefully brought here to become slaves and they still have not achieved complete equality: Black women still do not have the same access to doctors and many more die in childbirth than do white women.
A culture cannot have this level of violence without creating 'reasons' to be violent against these populations. Those reasons are often created from whole cloth, but if you repeat them long enough and often enough, in books, movies, the laws will reflect that, and your children and your children's children will inherit this [convenient] way of thinking: It gives them a presumption of superiority, and even when they are poor, their attitude is "Well, at least, I'm not black".
At this last debate, Trump asserted without any proof that in Springfield Ohio, there are many immigrants from Haiti who are eating their neighbors' pet dogs and cats!
The Governor has stepped in to debunk the lie, but the damage is already done: Haitians are now fearful for their lives because their neighbors now look at them with suspicion.
Have any cats and dogs even disappeared? IMHO, we need to start punishing those lies: it is, after all, calumny, and calumny can be proven and those who push it can be fined or imprisoned.
We also need to reform our system of Justice, which is much too slow to be effective: a liar can appeal as long as he has money, and even if you get gain of cause in a trial, it can be many more years before you get the first proceeds of this punishment.
I don’t think they do accept it. It’s just party over everything else.
Even worse, he thinks government is a business LIKE THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION—a small family owned business where his word IS the law and the flow of activity runs from deal to deal within a narrow range of activities. Wrong on every count!
Oh yeah — and he calls himself the King of Debt — loose translation, he knows how to make a profit out of bankruptcy, renegotiate individual loans and stiff contractors.
A country— especially one with the world’s reference economy — doesn’t work that way.
I wonder if Wharton is embarrassed.
Profits from bankruptcy are stolen from somewhere.
Rgr that - creditors, investors,etc ! I should have said that.
His business, had to declare at least 6 Bankruptcies. Proof, inept, at least, worst case, totally incapable of running businesses. Any awareness of his records as a business owner, or multiple businesses, reveals, corruptions, records reveal the many problems, reasons, issues complexities, inconsistencies and include ties to mafia ties. Tangled webs that are still not fully understood, nor fully investigated. Different state and federal jurisdictions.
Absolutely. Including bankrupt casinos. One of his appeals to some die hard Magats is that he’s a successful businessman. That might be his first big lie. Yet look what he did to national debt,with more to come if he’s re-elected.
Trump is manipulated and, increasingly it seems, manipulable.
He’s tremendously weak. Beyond “me me me “ and racisl hatred, he doesn’t really have policies. After this became apparent during his first administration extremists flocked to him to sell him their wack- o policies in exchange for flattery or favor or votes. You know, he really DOESN’T know that much about Project 2025. How could he? Now they have planted JD vance as president in waiting. Vance DOES understand P2025. Theyll get Trump out within six months of inauguration.
People like Putin orban kim can ( and did) see this weakness @ 25000 miles away. Kim let his true opinion ( dotard) slip before seducing Trump into falling in love. I’d be embarrassed if a child of mine fell for this.
PS. I dont totally discount the possibility that Putin, in particular, has some kompromat on Trump
Is there more kompromat needed?
It amazes me how they are able to excuse his lack of business acumen for their love of money and power. That and their hatred of labor, women, immigrants and the environment is truly breathtaking.
Fact check my friend! Trump does not now nor ever did actually run his companies. He hired flunkies who mostly didn't do a very good job.
OMG ! 😱. I really tried to hear something (anything) from Trump that could possibly make sense to ANYONE. All he did was PROVE TO AMERICA just how "CRACKED" he is. I mean I've never in my 74 years heard a more deranged and demented stream of gibberish and ridiculous LIES . He could NOT address any topic, had no ideas, no connection to reality. Nothing he said had a single moment of lucidity, thoughtfulness , meaning or minimally informed rationale.
He's literally a mentally unstable, lunatic and narcissistic sociopathic, MADMAN/ NUTJOB. Sorry folks. The guy has nothing positive to offer. He must be put out to pasture. (and I'm not talking as a "Stud". 🤣
The debate revealed just how detached from reality the orange one has descended.
Not only the orange one but his cult followers!
Unfortunately, his willfully blind "loyal" followers and sponsors are unconsciously attracted to his manner, his "strong" presentation of self (vs "weak" others) rather than the more intellectually demanding content, as rambling and loosely associated as that is. Great discussion here!
Greeley Miklashek, MD ; "his "strong" presentation of self " : He did not look so strong in the debate with Kamala.
I'm looking at the unconscious or "process" component of communication in order to fathom the otherwise absurd loyalty of 60M less educated or predatory capitalist Americans, and Tramp is nothing if not a big bully, on which we can agree, right? Every dictator projects such a "big" man presentation of self, right? So, this is Tramp's secret appeal, and Harris did a splendid job of cutting him down to size. Let's hope/pray she can keep it up and we turn this Titanic ship of state around before it is any more too late.
Exactly.
Mezzo Tint ; What would anyone expect from a Russian Plant?
Smokey: More likely a Putinwort.Everyone says that he smells bad and is prickly. Plus this invasive plant is found to be spreading everywhere, including the United Ststes.
Please don’t insult the plant world by including DT in its taxonomy. He is a parasite not a plant.
Tramp wort?
Yet there are still undecided voters. Incomprehensible!
I love that you're posting your work/ research into verifiable specifics. I do the same searching and linking for my own need to know the facts. But I, unlike you, I am now an old boomer. A geezer losing my skills at organizing & even remembering what I know.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW GRATEFUL WE AMERICANS ARE TO YOU and others who have picked up the reigns of (TruthTelling) and verifiable proof of FACTS. YOU MATTER to every one of us. Including those that are unaware to realize it YET.
Thank you Professor Reich, but how do we get the economics illiterate public to understand that tariffs are not PAID by foreign governments - they do not pay a dime to us it's like a humongous sales tax is on us, not them.
A flow chart (generally speaking) comes to mind. Telling the story in logical fashion by illustrating reality and showing where the money comes from and where it goes.
For some. Couldn't hurt.
But how about looking at what everyday Americans buy most, and use an example that shows what would happen to those items?
A truck, a bicycle, and a refrigerator walk into a bar ...
Why not come up with a story, and ask Storycorps.org to urgently create video?
Miss Betty's Calling - shows what Trump did to ALL FEMALES IN MISSISSIPPI :
https://storycorps.org/animation/miss-bettys-calling/
Not saying dumb it down but make it relevant to citizens' current issues instead of a hypothetical theory.
“On both occasions, Trump promised to raise tariffs on virtually all imports. He has said he’ll use the revenue to finance child care, combat inflation, pay for a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, and help reserve the dollar’s dominant role in the global economy. “
Apparently, Trump failed Econ 101! Tariffs are a federal sales tax that is passed on to the consumer; they are manufactured inflation that inhibits growth and reduces demand for goods and services. And last I checked, giving away free childcare services is SOCIALISM! Didn’t these guys just call Walz a SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST because he passed a law giving all school kids free lunches? Walz was crucified by MAGA Inc, and is considered either a communist or socialist depending on their definition of the day.
Additionally, Trump doesn’t know the difference between the Current Account Deficit (CAD) and the trade deficit (difference between import/export of good land services). The CAD is the trade deficit plus capital outlays or capital investments overseas. Yet, Trump believes they are one and the same. If he doesn’t understand the problem, he definitely cannot fix the issue.
Bottom line: Trump will do to America what he did to his businesses; run them straight into the ground, after strangling us with excessive debt. Trump has the dubious honor of creating one presidential record: he added a record $8.2 trillion to the national debt, and increased the deficit from $536 billion to $1.88 trillion in just four years. More money spent than Obama or Bush spent in eight years in office.
Quite the feat by any measure!….:)
And his followers think he is a genius?
As to be expected, Trump will reward his billionaire Friends and Donors with jobs in his government where they will have a free reign with minimum accountabilty, if any at all, to further enrich themselves via tax cuts, big government contracts, remove laws and regulations hindering them but are nmeant to protect workers, consumers and the environment. They are eager, as Elon MUsk is showing, to do this even without pay as they will benefit so much more than what is for them a lousy pay. Trump will sit on his golden throne as the great enabler no doubt getting his share. This is nothing new and and has been done so many times before in history and therefore is a very realistic expectation, based on what you can read and hear now.
History also tells us that it will end bad for them through greedy infighting and because ultimately the people will stand up and resist but before that far too many innocent lives will have been lost, vast bamounts of money will have been wasted and assets destroyed. Make sure you keep Trump and his friends out of the WH.
I wonder how long it will take to reduce the lives of enough Americans to actually promote a French-style revolution. It will be MUCH worse (actually un-winnable for the poor) than the French one because of the overwhelmingly greater arms and intelligence-gathering tech of the moneyed class. (Sorry for the dreadful grammar; hope it’s comprehensible despite the phraseology.)
I don't see how America can come out of a depression with 350 million people and no wealth, in fact trillions and trillions of dollars of debt! The right wingers have destroyed America in the name of greed while blaming the liberals.
As I often post, the alternative of fair trade needs to be clearly described as an alternative. Denigrating Hoover/Trump economics will only resonate with. A very few because the is no lived experience of a depression and world war.
Excellent point. My parents were children of the Depression and their experiences shaped their children's perspective.
I'm the only person on Substack posting this headline from The Guardian so far:
"MUSK ON TRACK TO BECOME WORLD'S 1ST TRILLIONAIRE BY 2027."
Seriously, what is wrong with any one person that can't be happy, satisfied owning $999,999,999????
He is greedy and believes his own stuff. Dollars "prove" his worth to him; a person with a yawning hole in his psyche
Left-wing radio host, Thom Hartmann says these are nothing more than "hoarders." The same kind of psychology that makes ppl want to fill their home with piles of dog poop, old dusty books, unpaid utilities, and broken down house.
But how are we, as Americans approving of this behavior, because this is OUR money floating up to only this group while 120 million of our neighbors struggle to feed ourselves and even find a home to afford?
Rhetorical question.
Too many Americans think they are going to win that next Powerball. Lol.
What you said--very true.
Really! And who better than a reichwinger takes their gun and “shoots themselves in their own foot,” (and head) & take us all down with them whenever they vote?
See the James Bond film, The World is Not Enough. Title says it all.
Lol! (And I'm crying at the same time.)
Should be enough for him and his friends to go start a Mars colony.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Putin's boss is a trillionaire already. One Simone Mikhaylovich
OK. I'm going to research this tidbit you sent me. Nobody ever talks about Putin having a boss! I thought he WAS THE BOSS.
I have to wonder how reliable the info you got is—Putin and probably all Russian oligarchs exaggerate. There's so much illegal activity and secrecy with Russians, how does anybody prove their claims?
Food for thought.
When you have that much money you have to sync it into so-called legitimate mechanizations. We do business with him every time we order from Amazon, walking to Walmart, buy something from Dick's Sporting Goods, likely patronizing any trans global corporate planet raping conglomeration. He's a major stakeholder in many of them. Obviously under multiple layers of shell constructions
That's the thing…it is hard to nail down the gory truth dealing with a guy like this. No doubt he's stinking rich but hard facts here are elusive. He runs lots of dirty businesses.
From what I can find on the internet, no reports of actual documented trillionaires. Yet.
Thanks.
Noticed his ties to the second largest terrorist Cabal in the world. One Mr. Netanyahu.
No surprise there, huh?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semion_Mogilevich
My spelling is incorrect.
Many of the oligarchs Russian and otherwise, say, Eric Prince types, I have closer to half 1 trillion and at least one magnitude of capital then Mr. national security threat
There were people in the Reagan era in the appropriate positions warning everyone who had the authority to authorize his neutrality. No one listened. C'est la vie
No one likes the smartest guy in the room.
Maybe he wants to buy Texas and turn it into a kingdom.
And never worked a day in his POS life
Professor Reich: trump's open attacks on science -- climate science, the environment, COVID-19 (remember horse wormer and injected bleach were touted as "cures"?) -- are a clear and present danger to the security America and to the health and longevity of its residents. the sheer lunacy of not holding greedy corporations (especially big oil) responsible and liable for cleaning up their messes and leaving those environmental messes to fester for literally DECADES or be cleaned up at the taxpayers' expense is outrageous and indefensible. [think: a toddler forced to clean up big brother's mess before the wee one can go out and play.]
Further, trump's suppression of communications between government public protection agencies and the public is, again, outrageous and indefensible. then there's the worrying lack or diminishment of the nation's food security (PFAS, anyone? or how about pathogenic bacteria-laden fresh foods like meat, eggs and fresh vegetables?) and now, right this very minute, as Hurricane Francine begins to pummel the florida coast, i am left to ponder the availability of paper towels if trump and his brown-nose brigade were in the white house at this time?
i could go on and on and on, as i am sure most of you know by now. as i've said before: please, everyone, just make it stop! Vote Blue up and down the ballot!
💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙🩵💙
I think the tide is turning. Between the excellent debate performance by Vice President Harris, Trump’s glaring blunders and Taylor Swift’s support of Harris, I believe our next President of the United States will be Kamala Harris.
Failure is NOT an option! 🗳️🗳️🗳️🌊🌊🌊
Marlo ; So many high profile Republicans endorsing Kamala, along with those who served in his cabinet, say it all.
The only question I have after reading your article, Professor Reich, is why in heaven's name are his followers so stupid as to think that what he is selling is a good thing? Obviously, if he were elected, we might as well kiss our great country good-bye! Taking the guardrails away and giving corporations free rein to rape consumers at will in order to line their pockets is so egregious, I am simply at a loss for words! Work hard everybody! We must get Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected so that our Democracy remains! Vote blue, America, up and down the ballot!
🗳️🗳️🌊🌊
It's incredulous that in an ever more complex world anybody could believe fewer guardrails is the answer. If we truly wish for less governance then we have to un-invent most of the trappings and ways of modern life.
An alternative approach might be that those who sign off on deregulation are personally liable for any consequences. That might slow down the eagerness of some to put their name to the removal of protections.
With the ability to hide from any taxes that would help the over health of the country the rich wallow like fatted pigs in the thought of a second Trump Presidency. They treat our economy like a game, where the winners find inventive loopholes that allow the wealthy to escape the need to pay any taxes at all. Trump prides himself in creating the rules of this game, how would his country clubs fare if all the existing members found ways to avoid paying their yearly dues? Reagan's trickledown theory was as pathetic a suggestion as a cow jumping over the moon. The Republicans feel we should be happy and strive to emulate "Little Jackie Paper."
Regulations= Consumer, worker protections, so of course, all reichwingers want nothing more than to demolish those regulations.
Reich does a solid job here laying out the chaos that is 'Trumponomics,' but let’s be honest, this is just more of the political theater we've come to expect. What we’re seeing is the same broken system being propped up by whichever figurehead distracts the public the best. Trump’s incoherent ramblings are just one part of the show, but if we look deeper, both sides have been serving the same corporate agenda for decades. It’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The real issue is the system itself, not the face they put in front of it.
For those who didn’t waste their time with the debate, I’ve broken down exactly why it wasn’t worth your attention: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-debate-you-shouldnt-have-watched
And if you’re curious about how the Republicans have consistently harmed the economy, you can read my thoughts on that, too: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-republicans-arent-always-better
Really? Moral equivalence between the two parties? Wasting time paying attention to arguably the most weighty election since the Civil War? I disagree completely with the tone of your comment. It preaches passivity and cynicism and hopelessness just when what is needed is the exact opposite- mobilization of effort to defeat the most ruthless antidemocratic, pro-business party in over a century and elect a pro-democratic government that builds on the solid gains against unfettered capitalism achieved under Biden. How you got where you are from Reich's brilliant, pithy analysis is bewildering.