Yesterday Thom read parts of the article "America's Middle Class Has Become Globalization's Loser" by Gabor Steingart in Der Spiegel and ranted on the insane economic policies that are destroying the middle class and the American dream.
quote:
"26 years of Reaganomics, of insane domestic economic policies and Clintonomics trade policies, insane international trade policies have destroyed the American middle class and now our political fate, if money decides elections, our political fate of this nation is in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and the drug companies and any other company that wants to step up to the plate and put enough money into it. The credit card companies, the banking company, I mean, you name it and they've got legislation. This is the death of America. This is the death of the American middle class. This is the death of the American dream and this is good times for those who make their living getting dividend checks from the Dow Jones industrials. Yes, the Dow is up. It does not mean the economy is better. It means the economy is better for investors, for the investor class, for that small slice of Americans, that one or 2% of Americans who earn most of their income from investment. Yeah, they're doing very well thank you very much. They're doing better than anybody else but the middle class of America is being destroyed.
"And with it, I'm telling you, and with it is going to go, unless we get a handle on this, unless we take this back, unless we start acting, and frankly we have to act inside the political realm, democracy itself is at risk. Why? Because the rules of the game, the economic rules of trade and domestic policy have been rigged against the middle class and in favor of big multinational corporations so where Halliburton re-incorporates KBR offshore so that they can avoid taxes, I mean the whole bit, we have to change the rules of the game and because the rules the game are set in Congress we have to change Congress. That's what it comes down to. That's why it's so important that you show up, that you go to moveon.org and you say, 'yes, I will make those phone calls', that you show up at your county democratic office and say, 'Yes, I will go door to door', that you toss 10, 20, 30 dollars to a Democratic candidate who is out there fighting the good fight."
I heard him say yesterday that the negative trend started in the 70s (according to the study). Yet, he said it was due to reaganomics. Reagan wasn't elected until 1980. So I'm not sure how he tied the negative trend to Reagan. Did you understand this part?
Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006
Things were going swimmingly for the Americans until the end of the 1970s, the commission report concluded. Family incomes grew virtually at the same rate in all sections of the population during the first three decades after World War II, with those of the poor growing slightly faster. The lowest fifth of US society saw a 120 percent increase in incomes, the second fifth 101 percent, the third 107 percent, the fourth 114 percent and the fifth 94 percent. It was as if the American dream had manifested itself in statistics.
But then the trend reversed.
Of course, things don't change immediately at the end of a decade - economic systems don't pay much attention to calendars - nor immediately upon the installation of a new president. I'd want to see the graphs.
Also, one year's dip does not mean a trend, so again I'd want to see the graphs to see if it was obvious when the change began (it might not be).
But it does seem that the rise in influence of the kind of economics that Reagan believed in (and Maggie Thatcher took office in 1979) was accompanied by the downturn that Thom and the article describe, and looking at how the Corporations that operate in the Reagonomics world behave, I'd say that this was no coincidence.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
In the seventies, liberals were one worlders. They wanted to spread industrialization to the third world so the poor wogs could rise above poverty and be one with the universe. Conservatives, like Buchanon were much more isolationist.
Now liberals blame conservatives and corporations for outsourcing jobs.
Be careful what you wish for.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by Sawdust: In the seventies, liberals were one worlders. They wanted to spread industrialization to the third world so the poor wogs could rise above poverty and be one with the universe. Conservatives, like Buchanon were much more isolationist.
Now liberals blame conservatives and corporations for outsourcing jobs.
Be careful what you wish for.
Of course! Who is doing it if not the corporations? Duh!
It's massive borrowing by GOP admins that help cause outsourcing of US jobs.
All those reagan, BushSr, BushJr trillions going overseas gives foreigners massive venture capital funds to invest in hi-tech (and other) industries and companies in India and China and other places. US CEO's can't resist using cheap labor over there to cut corporate spending and meet wallstreet projections.
Start balancing budgets, and we stop outsourcing as many jobs. Keep cutting taxes and we will keep reducing fed revenues and thus keep borrowing more and more from China and thereby invigorate their economy at our expense.
Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006
I heard him say yesterday that the negative trend started in the 70s (according to the study). Yet, he said it was due to reaganomics. Reagan wasn't elected until 1980. So I'm not sure how he tied the negative trend to Reagan. Did you understand this part?
The negative trend was the raising of interest rates. High interest rates are the easiest and fastest way to destroy the middle class.
Think about it...
If you have money in the bank and are rich enough not to have to borrow, even for a mortgage, then high interest rates are going to make you a lot richer real fast.
On the other hand, if you are like the middle class, and have to borrow for house, car and furniture, then high interst rates will make you poorer real fast.
The prime rate goes from 6.5% in 1977 to 20 .5 in 1981.
To illustrate how that affected consumers in real dollar and cents, take a $100,000 mortgage for example and compare the payments at 6.5% ($632.07) with the payments at 20.5 ($1712.18). As you can see the payments almost tripled, for the same amount of money!
Meanwhile, the rich, who have piles of money in savings and no need to borrow, see their fortunes grow in leaps and bounds without their having to lift a finger.
The head of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volkner, was the man responsible for this assult on the middle class. So why wasn't this a direct assult on the lower class? Because those folks didn't borrow for homes. They didn't have their cost of housing triple in 4 years.
I was a finace manager during these years and they remind me of a line by Hagrid in the Harry Potter movie "Those were dark times".
Those rates brought this country to its knees, economically and set the stage for supplyside economics.
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
I suspect that they wanted to share the wealth with their fellow workers, not to give more of it to the people at the very top.
Do you think that businesses exist to create jobs or do they have another purpose?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
I heard him say yesterday that the negative trend started in the 70s (according to the study). Yet, he said it was due to reaganomics. Reagan wasn't elected until 1980. So I'm not sure how he tied the negative trend to Reagan. Did you understand this part?
The negative trend was the raising of interest rates. High interest rates are the easiest and fastest way to destroy the middle class.
Think about it...
If you have money in the bank and are rich enough not to have to borrow, even for a mortgage, then high interest rates are going to make you a lot richer real fast.
On the other hand, if you are like the middle class, and have to borrow for house, car and furniture, then high interst rates will make you poorer real fast.
The prime rate goes from 6.5% in 1977 to 20 .5 in 1981.
To illustrate how that affected consumers in real dollar and cents, take a $100,000 mortgage for example and compare the payments at 6.5% ($632.07) with the payments at 20.5 ($1712.18). As you can see the payments almost tripled, for the same amount of money!
Meanwhile, the rich, who have piles of money in savings and no need to borrow, see their fortunes grow in leaps and bounds without their having to lift a finger.
The head of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volkner, was the man responsible for this assult on the middle class. So why wasn't this a direct assult on the lower class? Because those folks didn't borrow for homes. They didn't have their cost of housing triple in 4 years.
I was a finace manager during these years and they remind me of a line by Hagrid in the Harry Potter movie "Those were dark times".
Those rates brought this country to its knees, economically and set the stage for supplyside economics.
So, you are saying that Volcker intentionally raised rates, and as such, that is Reagan's fault?
Please connect the dots for me.
Did Reagan somehow get Volcker to do that to aide him in the election?
Or is Thom saying that Reaganomics is a term used to describe things that happened even before reagan took office (as a result of fed chief's actions), but which was perfected by Reagan?
Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006
So, you are saying that Volcker intentionally raised rates, and as such, that is Reagan's fault?
No, it was Milton Friedman's fault.
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
Ok, we are getting into an area that the general public doesn't understand and has little control over, at least it thinks it doesn't have control.
Supply side economics is an economic strategy that is designed to funnel wealth to those at the top, so they can best decide how it is to be used.
the term "supply-side" is derived form the "supply" side of the law of "supply and demand". Consumers provide the "demand" for goods and services, while business owners "supply" the goods and services. Hence, gearing an economic strategy to benefit the business owners is considered "supply-side economics".
The raising of interest rates funneled trillions in capital to the business owners, who in turn used it to jump start the economy and pull us out of the recession. (a recession caused by the high interest rates) At the same time Reagan took office and while he passed a law that prime rate was not to go above 15% again he passed numerous laws favoring big business and the wealthy. it was then that the terms "supply-side", "trickle-down', and "reagonomics' were coined, but all three mean exactly the same thing and Reagan sure as hell didn't invent it.
All Reagan did was continue the siphoning of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy by instituting policies designed to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer.
so even though high interest rates subsided, the polarization of wealth continued unabatted.
I could go on with a detailed timeline on all the measures taken to reach this end over the last 35 years, but I think you get the idea. If you ever wonder what a republican policy has up its sleeve just look for how it will benefit the wealthy.
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
It just seems a little hypocritical that the rabid antimonopolist Thom Hartmann offers nondownloadable audio clips only in Windows media format, a proprietary file format owned by the monopoly called Micro$oft.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Ok, we are getting into an area that the general public doesn't understand and has little control over, at least it thinks it doesn't have control.
Supply side economics is an economic strategy that is designed to funnel wealth to those at the top, so they can best decide how it is to be used.
the term "supply-side" is derived form the "supply" side of the law of "supply and demand". Consumers provide the "demand" for goods and services, while business owners "supply" the goods and services. Hence, gearing an economic strategy to benefit the business owners is considered "supply-side economics".
The raising of interest rates funneled trillions in capital to the business owners, who in turn used it to jump start the economy and pull us out of the recession. (a recession caused by the high interest rates) At the same time Reagan took office and while he passed a law that prime rate was not to go above 15% again he passed numerous laws favoring big business and the wealthy. it was then that the terms "supply-side", "trickle-down', and "reagonomics' were coined, but all three mean exactly the same thing and Reagan sure as hell didn't invent it.
All Reagan did was continue the siphoning of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy by instituting policies designed to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer.
so even though high interest rates subsided, the polarization of wealth continued unabatted.
I could go on with a detailed timeline on all the measures taken to reach this end over the last 35 years, but I think you get the idea. If you ever wonder what a republican policy has up its sleeve just look for how it will benefit the wealthy.
I understand that. tks
But if Thom said the negative trends started in the 70s, and reagan wasn't elected until 80, then why isn't Thom blaming the destructin of the middle-class in Carter or whichever president before 1980 that Thom thinks caused the negative trends?
I wish I had heard Thoms entire radio spiel yesterday, but I had to turn it off just after he blamed Reagan for a 70s phenomenoa
Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006
Was Carter able to do anything about the interest rate hike of the late '70s? Was it in his power? Or was this a way for those whose interests (the wealthy) were not being represented by our elected president to get what they wanted anyway?
eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004
Originally posted by Strawberry: But if Thom said the negative trends started in the 70s, and reagan wasn't elected until 80, then why isn't Thom blaming the destructin of the middle-class in Carter or whichever president before 1980 that Thom thinks caused the negative trends?
I wish I had heard Thoms entire radio spiel yesterday, but I had to turn it off just after he blamed Reagan for a 70s phenomenoa
If you recall as I do, Reagan ran much of his campaign on the dismal economic failures of Carter. Remember the question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" The voters decided.
High interest rates are a killer for the middle class. I borrowed mortgage money at 4.7% last year. Never thought I'd see that day back in the late 70's/early 80's when my mortgage was 14% and my car was at 20%.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
Originally posted by Strawberry: But if Thom said the negative trends started in the 70s, and reagan wasn't elected until 80, then why isn't Thom blaming the destructin of the middle-class in Carter or whichever president before 1980 that Thom thinks caused the negative trends?
I wish I had heard Thoms entire radio spiel yesterday, but I had to turn it off just after he blamed Reagan for a 70s phenomenoa
If you recall as I do, Reagan ran much of his campaign on the dismal economic failures of Carter. Remember the question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" The voters decided.
High interest rates are a killer for the middle class. I borrowed mortgage money at 4.7% last year. Never thought I'd see that day back in the late 70's/early 80's when my mortgage was 14% and my car was at 20%.
The economy in general was bad even before carter. I was not political bacn then, and clearly remember Nixon coming on TV news and trying to describe economic plans to help improve the stagnant economy.
I don't have enough info regarding Thom's arguments (or the pre-80s era in general) to post an opinion on them.
I do think reagan's massive borrowing hurt the economy, though I also think his tax cuts helped. I know Thom says Reagan also dropped tariffs and started global free trading and he thinks that helped accelerate the downfall of the US middle class.
I do think GOP borrowing under reagan, BushSr, BushJr has helped export US jobs and help other countries energize their own industries (at our expense).
Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006
But if Thom said the negative trends started in the 70s, and reagan wasn't elected until 80, then why isn't Thom blaming the destructin of the middle-class in Carter or whichever president before 1980 that Thom thinks caused the negative trends?
The reason I said Milton Friedman was to blame for the high interest rates was because he was the guy who came up wityh the theory that high interst rates were the best way to combat inflation. they did curb iinflation, by grinding the economy into a deep recession. Carter had nothing to do with it. I think he was afraid to put his foot down on the Federal Reserve to ease rates because of the double digit inflation and by the time the recession really started to hurt he was on his way out of office.
quote:
Was Carter able to do anything about the interest rate hike of the late '70s? Was it in his power? Or was this a way for those whose interests (the wealthy) were not being represented by our elected president to get what they wanted anyway?
I think it was in his power, but I can't say for sure if he needed Congressional approval or not. It was definately a way for the wealthy to get what they wanted, but Carter didn't run on a "tax the rich" campaign. It was more of an anti-corruption, anti-war and more governmental disclosure campaign. Carter was a smart guy, but not smart enough.
Hindsight being 20/20, it's easy to see that the right-wing machine made a monkey out of him. They enriched the wealthy during his term with the high rates, while blasting at his competence over the Iran hostage situation and finally making him look like an idiot by arranging for the hostages to be released on the day Reagan took office.
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
"I do think GOP borrowing under reagan, BushSr, BushJr has helped export US jobs and help other countries energize their own industries (at our expense)"
Those gas lines/shortages from the early 70's were fun , wern't they?
I notice you left out Nafta in your analysis of blame for the exporting of jobs. I think Perot was the only guy who had it right with his prediction of "the giant sucking sound". Of course, that would take away from the "I hate Bush" message....LOL.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
Originally posted by Slabmaster: Those gas lines/shortages from the early 70's were fun , wern't they?
I notice you left out Nafta in your analysis of blame for the exporting of jobs. I think Perot was the only guy who had it right with his prediction of "the giant sucking sound". Of course, that would take away from the "I hate Bush" message....LOL.
I agree about NAFTA (something BushSr instituted in the USA and compelled Clinton to support BTW). Clinton was not perfect, and also took us down the errant free-trade route, though I agreed with his tax raises, which helped balanced budgets and stopped transfers of us wealth to China/etc.
My earlier language indicates there were other reasons for outsourcing/etc..
However, I think GOP borrowing and spend policies are the main reason for our economic ills and outsourcing. Borrowing money actually sends a larger and larger portion of our annual budget to China and India and Japan and SK, etc, and they are using that massive transfer of wealth as venture capital for creating their own competitive jobs and industries.
Gas shortages were due to middle-east conflict and US support of Israel--not Carter's economic policies.
Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006
Originally posted by Strawberry: I agree about NAFTA (something BushSr instituted in the USA and compelled Clinton to support BTW). Clinton was not perfect, and also took us down the errant free-trade route, though I agreed with his tax raises, which helped balanced budgets and stopped transfers of us wealth to China/etc.
My earlier language indicates there were other reasons for outsourcing/etc..
However, I think GOP borrowing and spend policies are the main reason for our economic ills and outsourcing. Borrowing money actually sends a larger and larger portion of our annual budget to China and India and Japan and SK, etc, and they are using that massive transfer of wealth as venture capital for creating their own competitive jobs and industries.
Gas shortages were due to middle-east conflict and US support of Israel--not Carter's economic policies.
I know gas shortages came before Carter. I was referencing to the early 70's economy.
As for Nafta, here are some factiods (with link!). It hurt this country and was/is allowed to continue. Then we get Cafta. Great. Having borrowed money held by China is insane to me. No one gets a pass on what we see happening. The last 5 admins (or more) contributed.
From 1994 to 2000, the United States experienced a net loss of 3.2 million jobs due to trade.[2] Even accounting for increased employment in maquiladoras, more than 1 million jobs were lost in Mexico.[3] Agricultural poverty in Mexico has increased from 54% before NAFTA to 68% after NAFTA.[4] Farmers have been pushed to the wall, and the biggest Mexican peasant protest since 1930 was organized in January 2003, involving 200,000 campesinos, under the slogan "El campo no aguanta mas" (The countryside can't take it any more).[5] U.S. genetically modified crops imported without restriction into the Mexican market have contaminated local crops and reduced yields.[6] As a result of the catastrophic consequences of NAFTA on Mexican agriculture,[10] Mexico is becoming increasingly dependent on imports from the U.S.[7]
The Volcker instituted recession, was working, and the cbo predicted a surplus aout 1982. Carter also established an energy policy,and an energy dept. knowing what a chunk of national economic activity is dependent on it in some form or other. Sawdust, 'Business's main purpose is to make customers' -Peter Drucker
Blaise Pascal Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Pensees
Discussion Community 
