Financialization and neoliberalism require everything to be looted so the rich can keep getting richer.
The number of people enrolled in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans fell by more than 5 million in the last 12 months, according to a new report from the advocacy group Protect Our Care.
The decline stems in part from President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill — which was signed into law last July — and the expiration of the enhanced ACA subsidies, the group says. The law includes nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years; the subsidies expired in December after Republicans declined to extend them, leading to double- to triple-digit premium increases for millions of people.
This general trend is exactly what I predicted during the debate about the ACA: it would initially help, it would become more expensive over time and it would slowly die from a thousand cuts.
Using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, CBPP, a left-leaning policy organization, found the number of people on SNAP dropped by 6% — or 2.5 million people — from July, when the bill was signed, to December. In Wisconsin, participation fell by 2.3%, which equates to more than 15,500 people.
The post war consensus was to take care of the poor and people who the economy didn’t work for. Every since the 70s, and especially Clinton (with his welfare “reform”) every part of that architecture has been chiseled away. At one time, by law, all medical institutions were not for profit, including health care. That was repealed in the 70s and the predictable result happened.
Not for profit or mutual insurers are much cheaper. One of the few formal acreditations I have is “Fellow of the Life Management Institute”. Despite the name, it includes a lot about annuities and health insurance, and plenty of cites for studies. (Or did back when I took it.) And the studies are clear: for profit insurance is more expensive. This shouldn’t be a surprise, after all, they want to optimize profits, not care.
Cuts to SNAP have been going on for decades, and except during the pandemic all I remember is cuts and restrictions.
If you’re poor, the government will keep offering less and less help. If you require government assistance to live, or live half decently, you’d better find another way, I’m afraid.
This is also true Medicare and Social Security, which have been nibbled to death by constant under-statement of inflation.
Meanwhile the military budget keeps going up, the Pentagon can’t pass an audit, the US is running out of weapons, Ukraine is out of Patriots and being hammered into the ground, Iran is winning against the US and heck, the US couldn’t even with vs. Yemen’s Ansar-Allah.
If America doesn’t have health care because it has a big military, Americans sure aren’t getting their money’s worth.
But because of the Red Queen’s Race that rich are in, where if they don’t get richer at least as fast as other rich, they get bought out and drop out of the game, nothing is off the table when it comes to cuts. After all, those missiles and weapons have MASSIVE markups and high profit margins. SNAP? Helps some farmers, but otherwise no one’s making money off it, and the margins are low. Medicaid, same idea: low margins.
Surely there are wealthy people, or governments, who can earn the rich higher profits than poor people, so fuck them.
This is the West. This is the legacy of neo-liberalism. All because American whites didn’t want to be forced to live in the same neighbourhoods as blacks, so they voted Reagan. (That was the margin of victory, check into it yourself.)
If you’re in trouble in America, don’t cross the kill line, because once you do, no one’s going to help you enough to matter.
What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.
Feral Finster
“The post war consensus was to take care of the poor and people who the economy didn’t work for. Every since the 70s, and especially Clinton (with his welfare “reform”) every part of that architecture has been chiseled away. ”
Start liking it. After WWII, the fear of communism made it necessary for elites to offer a better deal (and not even just in material terms but in terms of freedoms).
This is also why the welfare state took hold in europe – it wasn’t because europeans are so civilized, but because their elites were more afraid of communism.
Now that the Soviet Union is safely gone, the elites naturally want to renegotiate the old deal.
Oji
I wonder how the rise of China, which seems more committed to pro-public policies and regs, might affect U.S. policies and regs, if at all? We might be seeing a political backlash gaining steam right now, too, in the U.S., with wins in such places as Michigan. If the trend picks up, might we see some attempt to mollify the populace? And what impact might a 3rd party, perhaps led by someone like Tucker Carlson, have?
mago
Community is the only hope for the poor and struggling, but anomie is what most people get instead. It’s a fractured time in the neighborhood, and will only get worse in the years to come before I die.
One thing among many that frosts me is every time there’s a laughable inflation adjustment increase in Social Security, say of $10, then there’s a $15 decrease in SNAP benefits because “your household income has increased.” It’s deliberate petty cruelty.
Actually, I kind of laugh, but I won’t be laughing when a tomato costs $5 and a pound of rice climbs to $10 while my paltry monthly income stays fixed. Yeah, the joke’s on us, and it’s a bad one.
spud
reagan would have never been elected, but the voters were driven into reagans arms by carter. just as trump was elected out of desperation to be free of bill clintons democratic party.
trump won twice because of that desperation.
———-
commons.wikimedia.org
Department of Defense. Department of the Navy. Naval Photographic Center / Public domain
President Jimmy Carter signed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act in 1980, which aimed to deregulate banks and improve the Federal Reserve’s control over monetary policy. This legislation marked a significant shift in the Democratic Party’s approach to economic regulation.
Federal Reserve History Wikipedia
Jimmy Carter’s Banking Deregulation Initiative
Overview of the Deregulation Act
President Jimmy Carter signed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act on March 31, 1980. This act was a pivotal moment in U.S. financial regulation, aiming to:
Deregulate banks and other depository institutions.
Improve the Federal Reserve’s control over monetary policy.
Key Features of the Act
The act introduced several significant changes to the banking landscape:
Feature Description
Deregulation of Interest Rates Gradually eliminated restrictions on the interest rates that banks could offer on deposits.
Monetary Control Required all depository institutions to meet reserve requirements, enhancing the Fed’s authority.
Negotiable Order of Withdrawal Accounts Allowed these accounts to be offered nationwide, increasing competition among banks.
Increased Deposit Insurance Raised the insurance limit for deposits from $40,000 to $100,000, protecting consumers better.
Impact on the Democratic Party
This legislation marked a significant shift in the Democratic Party’s stance on economic regulation, moving away from the New Deal-era financial regulations that had previously defined its policies. The party began to favor deregulation as a means to benefit savers and consumers, reflecting a broader change in economic strategy during Carter’s presidency.
Wikipedia Federal Reserve History
The key provisions of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 included the gradual elimination of interest rate caps on deposits and the requirement for all depository institutions to meet reserve requirements, enhancing the Federal Reserve’s control over monetary policy. This act aimed to create a more competitive financial environment and adapt to high inflation and interest rates of the time.
Federal Reserve History ebsco.com
Banking deregulation during Jimmy Carter’s presidency aimed to reduce government control over financial institutions, which contributed to increased competition and lower consumer prices. However, it also set the stage for future economic challenges, including the financial crises that followed.
theregreview.org George Washington University
The long-term effects included a significant shift in the Democratic Party’s stance on financial regulation, moving away from the New Deal regulatory regime toward deregulation, which contributed to increased economic inequality by benefiting large firms and wealthy individuals. This repositioning began in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1990s with key deregulatory bills like the repeal of Glass–Steagall.
scholars.org Cambridge University Press
————-
https://prospect.org/2025/01/02/2025-01-02-jimmy-carters-economic-legacy/
“WHILE CARTER’S CAMPAIGN CAREFULLY CRAFTED his public image as a humble peanut farmer and Sunday school teacher, his defining views on foreign and economic policy were shaped elsewhere—most notably through his involvement with the Trilateral Commission. Established in 1973 by David Rockefeller, chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank, the Commission’s membership was primarily composed of representatives from the international business, banking, and finance sectors, which had grown in strength and influence over the preceding decades.
The Commission’s central goal was to create optimal conditions for foreign investment and the free flow of capital in an increasingly globalized economy. Rather than relying on what it saw as outdated national frameworks, it advocated for greater policy coordination among the dominant industrial regions of North America, Japan, and Western Europe. While wielding no direct authority, its ideological influence was unmistakable in the Carter administration, which featured over 40 former members.”
“In an era of soaring inflation and rising living costs, many Americans came to view the sacrifices demanded by Carter’s policies as disproportionately affecting ordinary workers. Despite Carter’s assurances that burdens would be fairly distributed, this perception alienated the very constituencies he sought to help. It also fueled an anti-tax revolt, and a growing sentiment that the federal government was out of touch with the struggles of ordinary citizens—two themes later championed by Ronald Reagan.”
“Despite growing discontent, Carter’s economic performance remained relatively solid during his first two years in office, helping to deflect some criticism. Yet this stability unraveled in late 1978 when the Iranian revolution triggered a second oil crisis, sending inflation soaring into double digits.
In response, Carter embraced fiscal discipline as the solution, promising to halve the FY1980 federal deficit, with much of the spending reductions coming from employment and social welfare programs. He also appointed Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve chair, signaling a shift toward strict monetary policies designed to combat inflation.”
“Any potential benefits of these measures were overshadowed by Carter’s controversial decision in March 1979 to decontrol oil prices, based on the belief that higher prices would encourage conservation. Instead, inflation continued its upward spiral, and voters were outraged by the astronomical windfall profits accrued by oil producers. The resulting combination of rising costs and the perception of favoritism toward corporate interests only deepened public frustration, further eroding Carter’s standing with the very constituencies he was elected to support.
On July 15, 1979, Carter delivered his now-infamous “Crisis of Confidence” speech. In it, he blamed the nation’s struggles on what he described as a moral and spiritual decline, accusing Americans of “worship[ping] self-indulgence and consumption.” By shifting much of the responsibility for the crisis onto the public, Carter appeared to overlook structural issues like rising inflation, energy shortages, and economic stagnation, which were the true root causes of the turmoil.”
“Recognizing that re-election was impossible without the support of the party’s base, the Carter White House attempted to repair its strained relationship with organized labor. Lane Kirkland, the newly appointed head of the AFL-CIO, made it clear that any reconciliation would require a significant shift in the administration’s economic policy. In September 1979, both parties signed the National Accord. Under the agreement, labor unions would moderate wage demands in exchange for greater influence over policymaking, with the shared goals of achieving full employment and expanding social services.
Kirkland saw the Accord as a foundation for moving toward a European-style social democracy, envisioning a more collaborative relationship between labor and government. However, the White House appeared to view the agreement less as a transformative policy framework and more as a tactical maneuver to neutralize labor’s growing support for Kennedy. This perception undermined the Accord’s credibility and limited its potential to heal the rift between Carter and the labor movement.”
“To address the nation’s long-term structural weaknesses, many on the left argued for a more expansive industrial policy. Kirkland, ever proactive, partnered with investment banker and longtime Democratic adviser Felix Rohatyn to formulate a bold proposal: a Reindustrialization Financing Corporation tasked with steering investment into new infrastructure and manufacturing technology, while also aiding distressed regions and industries deemed vital to the national interest.
The corporation’s board would include representatives from government, business, and labor, and it would be funded through a combination of public and private capital. To further integrate labor into the process, Kirkland proposed leveraging employee pension funds, ensuring that unions would be a “partner, not a special interest.”
The plan found support among liberal Democrats, who saw it as a potential centerpiece for the upcoming presidential campaign. However, it faced strong opposition from Carter’s free-market proponents. Council of Economic Advisers chair Charles Schultze and special adviser on inflation Alfred Kahn were particularly vocal in their criticism.
They argued that the proposal would allow organized labor and big business to use government resources to shield themselves from necessary competition, ultimately creating inefficiencies and monopolies. As Schultze bluntly put it, “Too often … large business and large labor combine to screw the public.”
Carter sided with Schultze and Kahn. Rather than embracing the industrial-policy proposal, he doubled down on his existing economic agenda.
This included the deregulation of major industries—including airlines, railroads, trucking, and banking—that would have major ramifications for decades, weakening worker power, exacerbating financial crisis, and setting the stage for the post-pandemic supply chain crunch. Rather than industrial policy creating monopolies, there are now four major airlines, six big railroads that have carved up the country, and a more consolidated banking sector than we’ve seen in decades.”
“However, the respite was short-lived. By March, inflation had soared to a staggering 18 percent, with the Treasury issuing a dire warning of a “new and now universal perception … that inflation is out of control.” In response, Carter announced an additional $13 billion in budget cuts, vowing that no area of government would be spared.
Yet, conspicuously, his pledge to increase real defense spending by almost 25 percent by 1985—made in response to the crises in Iran and Afghanistan—remained untouched, highlighting the contradictions in his approach to fiscal discipline.
To combat inflation, the White House and the Federal Reserve imposed strict consumer credit controls. However, these measures were far more effective than intended, plunging the economy into a disastrous election-year recession. In the second quarter of 1980, the annual GDP rate dropped by a staggering 9.6 percent—the largest quarterly decline in the postwar era—and by July, unemployment had climbed to 8 percent.
Schultze acknowledged that “unemployment in this recession is perhaps even more than usually concentrated among blue-collar males holding industrial jobs.” Unemployment in the manufacturing sector exceeded 10 percent, while specific industries such as housing construction and automobile manufacturing were hit particularly hard, with joblessness in the latter peaking at an alarming 29 percent.
Under growing economic and political pressure, the White House and the Federal Reserve abruptly reversed course, adopting a looser monetary policy. However, this shift came too late to stave off disaster. Inflation remained in double digits through Election Day, while unemployment stayed high at 7.5 percent. The combination of soaring prices and widespread job losses only deepened public frustration, effectively sealing Carter’s fate in the 1980 election.
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CARTER TOUTED his deregulation agenda as “the greatest economic program since the New Deal.” In contrast, the Reagan campaign made a concerted effort to court disaffected Democrats.
Rather than focusing on divisive cultural issues, Reagan’s advisers strategically steered him away from his socially conservative positions, urging him to emphasize “pocketbook issues” in an appeal to elements of the old New Deal coalition. Reagan consistently argued that his supply-side tax cuts would spur investment, generate full employment, and ultimately increase tax revenues—enabling the government to maintain high levels of social services.
As The New York Times observed, “the Republicans are trying to look like Democrats this year,” highlighting their efforts to project concern for the working class, the poor, and minorities. By framing themselves as the party of economic prosperity, Reagan and his team sought to rebrand the Republican Party in a way that resonated with voters facing economic hardship.
Carter’s presidency represents a critical turning point in the history of the Democratic Party and the nation. By abandoning the principles of New Deal liberalism in favor of market-oriented policies, Carter severed the party from the very ideals that had long defined its identity and earned it the loyalty of working- and middle-class voters. His administration’s embrace of deregulation, budget cuts, and limited federal intervention signaled a departure from the expansive economic policies that had sought to address inequality and provide economic security for ordinary Americans.
While Carter may have acted out of a genuine belief that these shifts were necessary to confront the economic challenges of the 1970s, the consequences of this ideological pivot have been far-reaching.
His policies laid the groundwork for the neoliberal consensus that has dominated American politics for decades, prioritizing market efficiency over social safety nets and economic protections that many Democratic voters once relied upon. This shift alienated key constituencies, undermined organized labor, and contributed to growing economic inequality—problems that persist to this day.
As we continue to grapple with the fallout from stagnant wages, deindustrialization, and the erosion of government safeguards, it is clear that the legacy of Carter’s presidency remains deeply relevant.
His tenure not only reshaped the Democratic Party but also set the stage for many of the economic and political struggles we face today. The question for Democrats moving forward is whether they will continue to operate within the framework Carter helped create or reclaim the bold, interventionist policies that once defined the party’s commitment to fairness, equality, and economic justice.”
———–
there are underlying reasons why trash like a reagan, yeltsin, or trump types get in. its a sign of desperation by voters.
the imbecile carter handed our economy over to a ayn rand crank, alan greenspan.
clinton massively reduced poverty, by simply getting rid of welfare, and no longer count the long term unemployed, as unemployed, walla success.
i am still waiting for the multi millionaire obama, to barn storm the nation to try to save the ACA, and make it more viable and affordable.
no wonder reagan won twice, no wonder trump won twice.
Clonal Antibody
There is also a poison pill in the ACA for the Insurance companies – which could potentially kill the insurance companies. This is the 85/15 or 80/20 rule. For large corporate customers, 85% of revenues have to be spent on healthcare and for others, 80%. If they spend less, they have to refund the difference.
Bukko Boomeranger
How long do you think it will take before we start seeing references to “right-sizing” the Amerikan population, or some other corporate weaselspeak term that means”getting rid of the useless eaters”? Because that’s the next step.
Let the infirm old people die by cutting the amount of government money that goes to keep nursing homes operating. When I switched careers to become a nurse in the early 1990s, I worked in a lot of those places. Their existences were imperiled even back in those comparatively generous (as opposed to now) times.
Let the sick people die, if they’re not judged economically worthy to be signed up with “health insurance” companies. You work at a marginal job and can’t afford $1,000 a month for insulin or blood pressure meds? Please die quietly, as Congressman Alan Grayson said (before he became a Wall Street maggot). Not enough money each month for exorbitant mortgage or rental payments? Live on the streets until disease, exposure or a police Death Squad catches up with ya, pal.
The drumbeat of Elimination will start with Internet memes and trial balloons from loose cannon officials. It will work its way into the public consciousness, and it won’t take decades. Most Americans already have internalised the fact that if they get sick, they shouldn’t look for medical treatment because they’ll lose every cent if they do. The gun-humpers live with the fantasy that they will rebel violently against The System when it gets too repressive. But the only place they’ll point their pistol is at their own head when it gets bad enough.
I reckon that the Beelzebubzoses and skuMs who direct society will be happy if the U.S. population falls to 100 million. That’s enough people to serve as serfs and keep the overlords living in the style they like, and fewer competitors for resources. The problem is, the Master Class is not as smart as it thinks it is. A controlled decline is not easy to manage. There’s likely to be overshoot when it comes to reaching the desired Kill Line target. Assume the brace position for “rapid unscheduled disassembly” as NASA engineers used to term it. Before they got privatised out of their jobs…
GlassHammer
Ian,
War on all fronts:
Tariffs = Trade war,
Dollar bailout for Yen at expense of Euro = Currency War
Ukraine and Iran = 2 Hot Wars
Inflation = War on upward Mobility
No amount of money, leadership, or coordinated logistics makes that much conflict manageable.
spud
anyone who ignores the immense damage done by carter, then clinton, should really stop pinning the blame on a imbecile like reagan, who may have wanted to do damage, but was restrained. but really carter and and the most damage done, was done by bill clinton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoZlFaW1pcI
How Bill Clinton killed Pop Music with his Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The day Bill Clinton accidentally destroyed the music industry forever Exploring the ripple effects of the 1996 Telecommunications Act on pop music.
spud
again, not reagan. reagan was a imbecile who wanted to do this, but was restrained. the damage was started by another corrupt imbecile, jimmy carter. but clinton did the over whelming damage to america, and we live under his policies still today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQWWmB3LxaM
Private Equity Has RUINED Everything
—–
https://prospect.org/economy/cut-off-private-equitys-money-spigot/
Cut Off Private Equity’s Money Spigot
A variety of legislative and regulatory actions would make it hard for private equity to stay in business. That should be the goal.
by David Dayen
July 28, 2022
https://prospect.org/economy/cut-off-private-equitys-money-spigot/
Cut Off Private Equity’s Money Spigot
A variety of legislative and regulatory actions would make it hard for private equity to stay in business. That should be the goal.
by David Dayen
July 28, 2022
“PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS RAISE funds from several different sources. But after the industry temporarily collapsed amid Michael Milken’s prosecution in the late 1980s, institutional investors like public pension funds and university endowments drove the return to prominence. That support can be traced to one law signed by President Bill Clinton. It’s called the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA), and its impact has been almost totally forgotten to history.
The Investment Company Act of 1940 required investment funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, with regular reporting requirements, prohibitions on certain transactions, and restrictions on leverage (the use of large amounts of debt). Only investment firms that limited themselves to under 100 investors could avoid the 1940 Act restrictions.
The leverage restrictions alone—investment companies must carry asset coverage of $3 for every $1 of borrowing—would make the private equity business model largely impossible, so firms kept under 100 investors per fund. But Section 209 of NSMIA allowed exceptions for funds with over 100 investors, as long as they were “qualified purchasers,” defined as either individuals with $5 million or more in investments or institutional investors with over $25 million in assets. This opened a new funding base, which happily rushed in, seduced by the prospect of outsized returns. A decade later, in 2006, there was $375 billion in private equity acquisitions, 18 times the amount of just three years earlier.
The tools exist today to stop private equity, in a law written 82 years ago.
So the first way to reduce the involvement of private equity in every aspect of our lives would be to repeal Section 209 of NSMIA. This would both reduce the amount of available capital in each fund and limit private equity’s more attractive options. For example, firms have sought to get their investments into 401(k) plans, offering themselves to small investors for the first time. The Department of Labor has tried to put a stop to this. But if PE funds fall under the 100-investor rule, it wouldn’t be worth it to them to tap retail investors.
spamned
“Community” is a joke…Covid destroyed whatever sparkly bit that was.
I keep asking them to just send the goddamn black pill already…knowing your government/those who aren’t struggling/”family” (neoliberalism killed that) just want you dead is *a lot* to deal with.
What a waste this life has been…all reduced to a stupid Monopoly game, all transactional.
bruce wilder
The ineffectualness of what passes for the left in opposing any of it — or assembling allies in opposition — should be as remarkable as the unbounded greed of the right. I am glad Ian mentions Clinton (and Obama indirectly as sponsor of the ACA) as well as Reagan.
I know some people let their eyes roll back in their heads every time “neoliberalism” is mentioned as an explanator. Neoliberal ideology is experienced as so diffuse and encompassing — the wetness of water to a fish — that they cannot wrap their minds around what “neoliberal” means, other than as an all-purpose pejorative. No one under 60 was an adult when Carter was elected or Thatcher. We still attach “-gate” to norm-demolishing political scandals, but Nixon and Watergate are embedded in the chapters of history textbooks high school students never get to.
Neoliberalism was birthed from the right, from intellectual figures like Hayek and Milton Friedman, and from the exhaustion of New Deal liberalism and the coming apart of the New Deal political coalition. The neoliberal right, articulated by Friedman especially, had ready answers for everything that seemed to trouble the country’s economy, “market solutions” of reform to liberalize taxation and trade.
What sealed the deal to initiate the neoliberal era was that a new generation of the political left embraced neoliberal reform and abandoned advocacy for working class interests. A left neoliberalism emerged in dialectic with the neoliberal right. The political coalition of the New Deal came apart as the New Left fought with Mayor Daley and a new generation of “Watergate Babies” entered Congress. Adam Curtis in his BBC documentary, HyperNormalisation, covered how Wall Street took over John Lindsey’s New York City, while the New Left was doing cultural criticism and labor unions were left without allies.
The power of neoliberalism was in the invention of a left neoliberalism in dialogue with right neoliberalism to the exclusion of any other political program of reform: there was no alternative, in the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher. Reagan begat Clinton begat Obama begat Biden and Thatcher begat Blair begat Kier Starmer. Across Western Europe, seemingly endless coalition governments dissolved socialist parties in cold acid.
Right neoliberalism always knew what they wanted and they were relentless in pursuing deregulation of finance and business and tax cuts on wealth accumulation. The thing I think we ought to draw attention to is how left neoliberalism enabled it all and cultural leftism was weaponized to guard the flanks.
Where economic policy is concerned, the Clinton-Obama Presidential Party establishment has a solid core of personnel that are solidly neoliberal: people like perennial insider Larry Summers, designated “liberal” outsider Paul Krugman. They are all old now, but a whole generation of equally useless but persuasive “abundance” liberals is ready to fill in. According to a recent poll DSA-aligned Democrats are the most “free-trade” political grouping in American politics.
The weaponization of “woke” to antagonize potential populists and keep them aligned with the right while promoting grifters and eliminating populist candidates has been remarkable. Pronouns and land acknowledgments. But, at least you’ve learned to drown out economics with shouted accusations of sexism and racism.
vmsmith
“If America doesn’t have health care because it has a big military . . . ”
Back in 2018, the ultra right-wing Heritage Foundation published a report on how the U.S. military was facing an existential crisis because of obesity and other health-related issues among the entry-level recruit population.
I wrote an essay suggesting that progressives could use that to justify implementing some sort of national health care plan for Americans from birth up to age 42, which is the cutoff for enlisting in the military. I cited how a similar situation in WWII led to the school lunch program and how arch-conservative Senator Richard Russell supported that, how Eisenhower used national defense to create the interstate highway system, etc. I cited how the Anvers v United States Supreme Court ruling provided almost airtight, unchallengeable legal justification. And so on. I had about 10 people I know review it, and it was really pretty solid.
I sent that essay to God knows how many progressive periodicals, organizations, legislators, staffers, and on and on and on.
Crickets.
Not that I expected much. I certainly didn’t expect anyone from the Biden White House or whatever to call me and invite me to come discuss it further. But I did expect that somewhere out there someone could see the logic and the potential and might perhaps acknowledge that.
I still think it’s a solid idea that’s worth considering. But I’ve discussed it at dinner parties and such since then, and I’ve come to see that too many people who consider themselves progressive cannot bring themselves to embrace something that relies on something like a Heritage Foundation report, or supports the military, or anything like that, even though it could help solve what they claim is one of America’s most pressing issues.
bruce wilder
I wrote a long comment about how the conquest of all economic politics by right neoliberalism was enabled by the emergence of left neoliberalism in the Carter Administration and its institutionalization by Clinton-Obama-Biden, but I assume it was swallowed by my faulty wifi connection. spud did it better anyway.
it was international. The socialist parties of Western Europe were dissolved in the cold acid of governing coalitions. Gaze on the evolution of the neoliberal euro and EU and lose all hope. Laugh at Starmer or weep, your choice.
the abandonment of the working class and class war politics by the New Left in the late 1960s and 1970s was part of what doomed the populist conscience of the New Deal coalition. Adam Curtis’s HyperNormalisation documentary is still essential background on the history. More prosaically, Matt Stoller on the “Watergate Babies” generation of Democrats in Congress and how useless they were in opposing the right neoliberal agenda for restructuring the economy is important.
the thing that disturbs me most recently has been the weaponization of “woke” among the young and soi disant radical and also the way TDS took over the minds of such a wide swath of the middle-aged centre. Two seemingly very different forms of political derangement but both extending life support for a dying neoliberalism, by denying any kind of effective left populism oxygen. I thought people would get tired of “racism” and “sexism” as shibboleths, but no.
Like & Subscribe
I sent that essay to God knows how many progressive periodicals, organizations, legislators, staffers, and on and on and on.
No surprise there. That’s exactly as expected as far as I’m concerned. Progressives have embraced fatties and turned them into a special interest just as they have with LGBTQ and everything else under the sun. Being obese is a protected status and affords special rights like two airline seats for the price of one. LGBTQ, as a special interest, lobbies for accessing formative minds in order to confuse children about gender. I guess the logic there is because some people, nay a tiny imperceptible minority, unfortunately have gender challenges, everyone should. The irony is, as we’ve come to find out, a substantial percentage of the current Republican party is closeted, or not so closeted, LGBTQ. I am for equal rights and non-discrimination. I am not for a democracy of special interests who lobby for special status and rights and power.
spud
bruce wilder:
a true left winger understands this perfectly, social rights will never be secure, till labor and economic rights are secure.
there is no neo-liberal left, they are fascists that elevate capital over sovereignty, civil society, and labor rights.
trash like reagan, bush II and trump, get elected out of a deep desperation to get away from fascism.
that’s the only way voters know, till they no longer fear the bullets because of starvation and homelessness.
we are close to that meals thing.
if you watch the video on private equity and hedge funds. you will see that two hedge funds control almost all carrot production, and have driven the price of carrots sky high.
this was the results of neo-liberalism which is fascism, not left, like woke is not left. its the results of fascism.
bruce wilder
@ vmsmith
I confess I would probably pooh-pooh your concept at a dinner party. I am not exempt from observing the social norms expected of the politically progressive, plus I am deeply suspicious of the sincerity of anything coming out of Heritage. But, I accept your sincerity.
Political realignments that reshape the coalitions that govern take place so slowly that you have to be old to have a felt sense of how fluid concepts of “left” and “right” are. There are no permanent polar opposites at that level of politics, as much as people enjoy embracing politics as a team sport and despise the “evil” in the hearts of their partisan opponents.
The professional and managerial class, clinging to their university credentials, make up the core of the neoliberal Democratic Party, and as much as they love displaying their “virtue” by respecting pronouns and the like, do not care a fig about the health and welfare of the under-45 working class.
They are “the deplorables” after all. The prosperity of blue coastal cities, centers of High Tech and Finance, cannot be admitted to be parasites feeding on the deindustrialization of the Midwest and its opioid-addicted working class, who somehow fail to acknowledge their white privilege.
I am guilty of political nostalgia for the politics of the New Deal coalition, which made some very strange bedfellows out of Northern liberals and Southern segregationists, by modern lights. I don’t imagine Ezra Klein would want to explain why the Congressional Black Caucus works so hard to eliminate inheritance taxes.
StewartM
Every since the 70s, and especially Clinton (with his welfare “reform”) every part of that architecture has been chiseled away.
All because American whites didn’t want to be forced to live in the same neighbourhoods as blacks, so they voted Reagan. (That was the margin of victory, check into it yourself.)
The two are related. Starting in the 1960s, with the Great Society, all forms of public assistance to the poors had a black face painted on it by movement conservatives, even though the majority of these recipients were white (as a resident from Appalachia, I can tell you we still have grinding poverty among poor whites here). I recall growing up hearing a popular music song c. 1970 or so ending with a black-sounding female voice demanding “Where’s my welfare?” in the closing fade-out. Incredibly, like farmers and the poors voting for Trump, this got even the white recipients of such programs pulling the lever for voting for candidates who would slash their benefits or kick them off the rolls.
As an Appalachian example of this, I give you this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Knoxville_church_shooting
The shooter listed in his motivation for going into a UU-church and shooting people at random watching a *children’s play* was he couldn’t get a job. The article doesn’t say this, but he was also upset that his food stamps had been cut (by the Bush administration he VOTED FOR) and yet he blamed “libruls, gays, Democrats, and African-Americans” for this. His home was filled with books by Jonah Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, and other rightwing authors.
My favorite anthropologist, Marvin Harris, has explained the Great Witch Hysteria of the late 15th and 16th centuries as the “magic bullet of the propertied classes”, as it got people to stop blaming princes and popes for their problems but shifted blame away from these to those dastardly witches (Did you child die? Did your crops fail? Must be those witches at it again!). Even more, the witch hysteria made the established leadership indispensable in “fighting” the problem; you could see them “protecting” you every time they once more carbonized some poor old woman alive.
I would also add, though I suspect most people here know already, that the Protestant churches weren’t bigly against abortion in the 1960s and 1970s. It was only after the Feds took away their tax-exempt status if they refused to racially integrate their religious schools that conservative protestants like Jerry Falwell formed the Moral Majority. So once again, while their propaganda was about the gays and the aborted babies, it was really race that drove the issue.
different clue
. . . ” According to a recent poll DSA-aligned Democrats are the most “free-trade” political grouping in American politics. ” . . .
This should not surprise anyone given that one of the DSA’s eyediddyological beliefs is in the abolition of national borders ( in order to achieve the abolition of nations and countries.) I don’t have the time before work begins to find their Overt and Official platform. I just had time to find this . . .
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/democratic-socialists-of-america-core-policies-platform-213ad4
Which includes this . . . 2. Immigration, civil liberties and international stances
“DSA’s platform and chapter materials endorse expansive migration rights and what organizers describe as freedom of movement, and some local DSA materials call for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and halting certain foreign military funding—stances that situate the group to the left of mainstream Democratic policy on immigration and foreign policy [3] [7]. The organization also mobilized around calls for ceasefires and Palestine solidarity actions, showing internationalist priorities woven into its domestic platform [2] [7].”
I am not an anti-National DemSocist. I just find the DemSocs a handy tire iron to beat the Clintobamacrats with at the present moment.
Obviously the Great New Deal – to- Eisenhower era civilization can not be recreated here. The natural resources are gone, never to return. But a careful repealing of every anti New Deal law and a careful rescinding of every anti New Deal regulation, and the restoration of every New Deal legacy-type regulation would restore the political habitat-matrix-forcefield for growing back a New Deal fairness-type civilization at a lower, slower and smaller level.
Spud’s work in noting and preserving some of the detailed knowledge about the various details of anti New Deal underminement is very valuable and one hopes that people are desktop-copying it onto acid-free paper for when the Internet goes down for good. Years of Teach Ins and recovering of the knowledge might lead to a political citizen-force of enough millions of people knowing the details of how it was all destroyed in order to work out details of how to cancel out all the legislative and regulatory methods of destruction.
This would be a fine time for the DemParticrats to run on the Big Beautiful Repeal. And also the mass cancellation of every Trump-era executive order , regulation/deregulation, etc. The DemParticrats won’t run on any such a thing, because they are invested in protecting the Big Beautiful Bill, now that the Republicafederates got it passed and signed. The Dems still live to be the Pawl to the Republicanfederates’ Ratchet . . . as Lambert Strether once put it.
This might be a fine time for the few DemSocs running to run on the Big Beautiful Repeal as long as the Dems won’t. But the DemSocs won’t do it either, because they are too stupid and too self-bewitched by their own beautiful eyediddyology. As I said, I am not a DemSoc. I just hope they can be my Tire Iron of Convenience over the next two or three elections.
Tucker Carlson and MT Greene want a purified White Power Christian Nationalist Third Party. They will be happy to fool any White Leftists who can be fooled into allying with their (White) America First movement in the vain belief that White Leftists will be allowed some kind of genuine input and control over the ” Horshoe Coalition” which the Tucker-Greene forces allow the White Leftists to fool themselves into thinking they are being offered. It is the return of the Strasserite Fantasy.
( Forward . . . March! White! Left! White! Left! White! Left! etc.)
It will mark the final separation between Black America and non-Black America. Eventually Black America will form a Black America First movement by whatever name. Those non-Black persons or even possibly groups who think their viable-survival future may well lie in pursuing Proximity to Blackness may well seek a junior-partner status at the edges of the Black America First movement, when it emerges, which it will.
And I could see an Indian America First movement arising among the Tribes and Nations. They might well be a co-equal partner with a Black America First movement.
( I don’t know that Canada has anything remotely similar to the Foundational Black Americans here in America. Perhaps if the Quebecois start to think of themselves as Foundational French Canadians . . . would that be a loose and distant approximation? I can only wonder. I cannot predict or assert. Only Canadians would be able to do that.)
spud
bruce wilder;
the new deal coalition understood this perfectly,
“social rights will never be secure, till labor and economic rights are secure.”
here is a example,
George Wallace initially aligned with populist New Deal programs in the 1940s under Alabama governor “Big Jim” Folsom, supporting economic policies like trade schools and industrial development, but later opposed federal civil rights enforcement while still promoting low taxes and state-centered economic growth.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Alabama
George Wallace’s Early Political Alignment
Initial Support for New Deal Policies
In the 1940s, George Wallace was influenced by Alabama Governor “Big Jim” Folsom.
He initially supported populist New Deal programs, which included:
Trade schools
Industrial development
Wallace’s early political stance focused on economic growth and social welfare.
Shift in Political Stance
Over time, Wallace’s views evolved significantly.
He became known for opposing federal civil rights enforcement.
Despite this shift, he continued to advocate for:
Low taxes
State-centered economic growth
This transition marked a significant change in Wallace’s political identity, moving from a focus on economic populism to a more segregationist and state-centric approach.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Alabama
George Wallace’s governorship occurred after the New Deal era, but his early terms emphasized “industrial development, low taxes, and trade schools” to spur Alabama’s economy.
Encyclopedia of Alabama Wikipedia
George Wallace promoted low-grade industrial development, low taxes, and trade schools as key strategies for Alabama’s economic growth. His policies aimed to attract industry to the state, although they were often intertwined with his segregationist views and political rhetoric.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia of Alabama
————-
George Wallace later apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a segregationist, acknowledging that he was wrong and seeking forgiveness. He expressed this change of heart particularly after his assassination attempt in 1972, which led him to reflect on his past.
Wikipedia juicyecumenism.com
—————-
In the 1970s, the South began to accept civil rights more significantly, particularly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which enforced desegregation and protected voting rights for African Americans. However, challenges and resistance to full equality persisted throughout the decade.
Wikipedia National Park Service
————-
then along came bill clinton as he opened up his run for presidency, announcing it on stone mountain, the KKK mountain, in front of a lot of black prisoners. guess what, you guessed it, civil rights under attack again, and its intensified.
In 1992, Bill Clinton held a campaign event at Stone Mountain, Georgia, which is historically significant as the site of the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan in 1915. This event was criticized for its racial implications, as it featured a photo op with mostly black inmates, highlighting Clinton’s controversial “tough on crime” policies.
The New Republic
Bill Clinton’s Campaign Event at Stone Mountain
In 1992, Bill Clinton held a significant campaign event at Stone Mountain, Georgia. This location is historically notable as the site where the Ku Klux Klan was reborn in 1915. The choice of this venue raised concerns about its racial implications.
Racial Implications of the Event
Photo Opportunity: Clinton’s event included a photo op with mostly black inmates from the nearby correctional facility. This was seen as a controversial move, especially given the historical context of Stone Mountain.
“Tough on Crime” Policies: The event was part of Clinton’s broader “tough on crime” agenda, which has been criticized for its impact on African American communities. Critics argue that these policies contributed to increased incarceration rates among black individuals.
Historical Context
Ku Klux Klan: Stone Mountain is infamous for its association with the KKK, which held a revival ceremony there in 1915. This connection adds a layer of complexity to Clinton’s choice of venue for a campaign aimed at appealing to a diverse electorate.
Political Strategy: The event was strategically timed just before Super Tuesday, aiming to solidify Clinton’s support among Southern voters while navigating the sensitive racial dynamics of the time.
Clinton’s Stone Mountain event remains a focal point in discussions about his legacy and the Democratic Party’s approach to race and criminal justice during the 1990s.
The New Republic bostonreview.net
The 1992 campaign event at Stone Mountain, Georgia, where Bill Clinton posed with black inmates, was seen as a cynical attempt to appeal to white voters by showcasing a tough-on-crime image, which ultimately played into racial stereotypes and the politics of race. This event highlighted the subconscious racism that some white voters might harbor and was part of a broader strategy to reposition the Democratic Party as the party of law enforcement, contributing to a legacy of mass incarceration.
The New Republic The Progressive
The Ku Klux Klan was reborn at Stone Mountain in 1915, which has led to a negative association with the site, particularly when Bill Clinton held a campaign event there in 1992. This connection has influenced public perception by highlighting Clinton’s “tough on crime” agenda and raising concerns about his relationship with racial issues.
The New Republic Jacobin
Stone Mountain is historically significant as the site where the modern Ku Klux Klan was reborn in 1915, following a ceremony led by William J. Simmons, inspired by the film “The Birth of a Nation.” The Klan held rallies at Stone Mountain until the late 1970s, and the mountain is also home to the largest Confederate monument in the world, which has been a focal point in discussions about race and history in America.
atlantahistorycenter.com kqed.org
———
The Powell Memo is considered the turning point to fascism. yet, trash like powell are always below the surface in any country, at any time.
what it takes is leadership that is more than willing, to tear the country to ribbons and plunge it into chaos and death, to enact said policies.
it was carter who started it, and clinton that took it till we face the disasters we are facing today.
reagan was a moron that was constrained by congress. bush I was a aristocrat that just wanted to boat his summers away. bush II was a complete idiot and a bungler, that wanted to do more, but was constrained.
obama and biden were simply extensions of bill clintons policies, biden was clintons right hand man. obama and biden made sure no clinton policies would be reversed.
Purple Library Guy
The thing about political and economic projects that favour the rich is, they are obviously going to be well funded. That funding buys propaganda. At all levels. Whether it’s simple political ads or lots of paid commenters and bots on social media, or owning the media outright and shaping what the TV show says or the social media platform amplifies. Whether it’s think tanks which feed analyses to the news media, or endowed chairs of economics that go to neoliberal economists.
This is a huge hurdle to overcome. The world is complicated, and while some issues are actually surprisingly simple (taking money from most people, to give to rich people, makes the majority poorer and the rich, richer–go figure) it’s pretty easy to obfuscate them and make them seem complicated or the inverse of reality. It is really not a surprise that the left loses a lot. Having the truth on your side only becomes better than having the propaganda on your side when the situation is dire enough that the truth is staring everyone in the face.
Carborundum
It’s a common misconception that the weapons business has massive profit margins – objectively, it’s actually a pretty crappy, highly government “managed”, industry; towards the low end on terms of margins, particularly given how key IP is. The things that it does have going for it look to me to be that it is safe from mortal failure and susceptible to advocacy – if you are one of the giants, you’re pretty safe from going under and can meaningfully affect the deal.
Since the rationalizations of the 90s, all of the bigs look to me to have been judged too important to lose. That said, being a small player must absolutely suck rocks, particularly as a supplier for the bigs. Definitely not where I would invest my money. I know / know of a couple of suppliers of specialized equipment up here and it is significant part labour of love for them.
bruce wilder
Michael Alexander, who shares my New Deal nostalgia and has a substack that delves (look, an AI word!) into economic and political history, reminds me that Reagan’s key policy move was unfunded deficit spending. Nixon had set the precedent and gotten away with it, but it was Reagan’s political genius to combine the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism with Kennedy-like tax cuts-for-growth.
The neoliberal worldview was that the “market economy” [sic] just “naturally” produced inequality alongside efficiency and groaf. The assigned role of government, according to the (left) neoliberals, was to use tax and social policy to ameliorate the side-effects (poverty) of all that wonderful innovation, efficiency and growth that would follow from unleashing capitalism. The right neoliberal argument was that trickle-down from the winners would be all the amelioration necessary, but left neoliberals prided themselves as champions of society’s deserving losers. It would take awhile, but eventually the only critique of policy held valid on the left would be racial disparity, but in the early days, auto workers would learn to code.
What was unleashed, of course, was one wave of upward redistribution of income and wealth after another, from Reagan and Bush II and Obama. Clinton was the last to come close to balancing the Federal budget and, in effect, he reloaded the gun for his successor, Bush, who leveraged Clinton’s financial deregulation combined with his own, to produce a global financial crisis and a Fed Chair in Bernanke prepared to secure a future for billionaire oligarchs.
How would anyone or any political movement slow and restrain this beast?
I see it as an accelerating doom machine, like a runaway train on a track heading toward oblivion.
When the post-WWII dispensation of liberal consensus ran aground in the social upheaval and business frustration of the 1960s, the old liberal and populist Left was nearing or passing retirement age and ready to exit the political stage. The new Left scarcely had any idea about how anything worked or cared really. But, Milton Friedman and the neoliberals were full of ideas, diagnoses, facile explanations and proposals.
I look back and attribute neoliberal success to the absence of effective pushback. Part of that is attributable to ideological collapse in academic economics, believe or not. The Marxists and institutionalists disappeared entirely by c1970 from the prestigious departments of major Universities, leaving only marginalized figures in a few refuges.
There is not today a progressive equivalent of Milton Friedman criticizing the crumbling edifice built by neoliberalism. No equivalent of John Kenneth Galbraith, even, or the 1960s Keynesians, who lost the argument with Friedman back in the day.
I like Steve Keen, but he’s just a gadfly and knows it. Keen argues the case for fearing the growth of private debt, not public debt, accepting the MMT argument that public debt is the obverse of private savings. The MMT folks don’t argue, as far as I can tell, for a balanced budget or regulatory financial repression and restructuring of banking and finance. MMT rhetoric seems fixated on fighting “austerity” and ignoring the implications of international dollar finance.
Maybe, we are just deer caught frozen in the headlights of onrushing climate change, but that isn’t very hopeful.
spud
MMT is like any other movement, lots of mediocre types. the best are hudson, keen, mitchell, and other like minded types.
private debt is the biggest problem, except public debt if its tied to the balance of payments. think the trade deficit, and all of those military bases to enforce free trade.
most MMT types, the balance of payments is a huge blind spot.
as far as balancing a budget? what a hoot. the only thing a deficit in internal spending is, if not enough dollars were printed up for the economy to function.
a budget surplus is just recycled in to treasuries, and no treasury offered to the banks has ever been turned down.
there is no such thing as a bond vigilante in a first offering of treasuries. more buyers than treasuries offered.
its the secondary market where things can get touchy.
all a so called balance budget would do, is starve the economy and destroy future income. makes no sense at all.
keen argues extensively for new deal like legislation, hudson would go further, mitchill is where keen stands.
————
Steve Keen emphasizes that government intervention, like the New Deal, was crucial in stopping the economic collapse during the Great Depression and argues for similar actions in today’s economic crises. He believes that addressing private debt is essential to prevent future financial disasters.
Apple Wikipedia
Steve Keen emphasizes that government intervention, like the New Deal, was crucial in stopping the economic collapse during the Great Depression and argues for similar actions in today’s economic crises. He believes that addressing private debt is essential to prevent future financial disasters.
Apple Wikipedia
Historical Context: Keen points out that the New Deal was a response to the severe economic downturn, showcasing how proactive government spending can stabilize an economy.
Preventing Future Crises: He emphasizes that addressing private debt is crucial to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Keen argues that without intervention, economies risk falling into cycles of debt and deflation.
Keen’s analysis suggests that understanding the lessons from the New Deal can inform current economic policy, advocating for robust government action to mitigate financial instability and support recovery.
Apple Wikipedia
The key components of the New Deal included relief for the unemployed, economic recovery, and financial reforms. These initiatives aimed to address the hardships caused by the Great Depression and established a precedent for federal government involvement in economic and social affairs.
Library of Congress Wikipedia
The potential risks of addressing private debt in today’s economy include a lack of transparency and interconnectedness with other financial institutions, which can lead to financial instability. Additionally, deteriorating credit quality and liquidity pressures may trigger fire sales and simultaneous deleveraging, posing further risks.
oecdecoscope.blog
bruce wilder
Having the truth on your side only becomes better than having the propaganda on your side when the situation is dire enough that the truth is staring everyone in the face. – PLG
I think all any of us ever have is maybe half-a-truth combined with some hard-earned, somewhat misleading experience.
I talk to some random people in my daily life — people I don’t know but bump into; fellow drinkers at Happy Hour or an unusually talkative Uber driver — and politics of the sort discussed here at ianwelsh.net seldom comes up.
People get the message that the Rich are coming for their jobs, armed with AI and self-driving cars. I don’t know any really rich folks so I have no idea if really rich people are aware that their well-funded propaganda is delivering that message loud and clear. Old, decrepit retired people like me are not always concerned — depends on the prospects of the grandchildren a lot. My point is that some propaganda comes thru loud and clear; few people I have met are anticipating an era of abundance, whether sourced locally or via Fedex from the Chinese Communist Party.
I watch the situation with the War in Ukraine and War with Iran / Israel in Gaza with interest — not the progress of arms so much as the War of Narratives and the reactions of ordinary people compared to the mechanistic “brand management” stances of politicians and journalists and influencers with podcasts. Neither war has much popular support in the U.S. as far as I can tell. I am admittedly not taking polls, but it appears to me that the alignment of politicians is at odds with the weight of popular opinion. By itself, that is nothing unusual — Congress is known by expert observers to be totally unresponsive to mass opinion. But, the disconnect is visible — made more so by Trump’s broken promise of no new wars. I wonder if the fact that Israel lobbies — there are a dozen in addition to AIPAC — own the Congress, is seeping into mass consciousness, despite (or because of) Zionist efforts to take over Media they didn’t already control.
@spud — I was an active Democrat attending Party conventions and such, when George Wallace won the Michigan Presidential Primary in 1972. He did make classic demagogic appeals to the type of people a social psychologist might label, “right-wing authoritarian followers”. The things about such people that educated libruls often miss is that economic precarity and limited life experience and horizons imposed by that precarity drive the anger, suspicion and prejudice. Another thing missed: “right-wing authoritarian followers” are fiercely egalitarian. Demagogic leaders often go in a different direction from the followers, as we see with Trump (and Musk). Wallace, whatever his many faults, plugged into and honored that egalitarianism. I think Clinton loved himself a Rockefeller or Tyson or two.
spud
bruce wilder:
i am not carrying any water for wallace. but wallace types were the reason why the new deal was implemented. you could say that about huey long. FDR knew this, and was forced into working with them. the alternative was fascism.
i was tossed out of the democratic party because i dared to point out what clinton was. i talked to others who were driven out and surfaced later to speak to me about it.
we are both old and have seen a lot. if you really want to understand the rich, and i worked with a few, here it is, they are clever, cunning and manipulative, and do not care, or believe they are destructive. they actually believe they have merit. smart, most are not.
so to understand what they will do, you have to think like them, and understand what a parasite would do.
once you think like that, then you know most are functionally insane.
GrimJim
It is no longer mere abandonment.
Under the Trumpists, it has become a pogrom against the poor. Purposeful destruction with the hopes that they will just die quietly in a ditch somewhere, where their “betters” need not see nor hear them.
They have purposefully and with malice aforethought cut their food, cut their health care, cut their education, cut their basic living services, and with the placement of mass quantities of Brown folks into concentration camps, cut out a large segment of those who work in the industries that the poor also work in and depend upon.
With this last, the working poor now are working ever harder and yet are less able to make purchases of goods and services in their socioeconomic class, as prices go up even as availability, quantity, and quality of those goods and services go down.
In general, among the rich and powerful, their disdain of the poor has been mostly simply a lack of interest.
With the Trumpists (especially the Project 2025 cadre), the further immiseration and extirpation of the poor is all part of the plan.
different clue
@GrimJim,
I remember Lambert Strether and especially Yves Smith spending the last few months before the election claiming that Project 2025 was just an idle wish list / expression of conservative grievances and nothing to pay any attention to. Certainly nothing worth voting against ( by voting against its supporters and agents). ( And I remember separately that Lambert Strether tried his hardest to pretend that their was no insurrection or even riot at the Capitol, or if there was, it was organized by false-flag pro-Democrat FBI agents and informants.) The NaCappers did as much magasbara as they felt they could get away with. That was my impression at the time and my memory looking back.
How successful was Yves Smith’s disinformation campaign about Project 2025 in getting a just-barely-big-enough tipping-point massload of people to NOT vote aGAINST Trump in the election? I don’t know, but the subject deserves study.
Also, Yves Smith ( and NaCap generally) should be held to their own stated rule that someone or someones who was so very wrong about something so very important should not be trusted for political judgement in the future.
Their aggregation of links and their special articles remain interesting, to be sure.
warvgilent
Fucking Gods, “woke is fascist” !!! put down your meth pipe and turn off your manosphere bullshit. let me guess andrew tate was framed for his rape allegations too see!!! Its really appalling how often you “leftist” purist really do make the horseshoe connection and a line with actual fascists/ christian dominionists/ bigots/racists/ etc.
check out the Charles Manson fantasies of race war.
talk about forming coalitions by strictly dividing everyone into the other.
Where does this fascists idea come from that all minority issue/right is strictly a ploy by the neoliberals ? trans issues were not even political until epstine and rowling decided to start funding that angle . Any of you got some sweet harry potter money or pedo island proceeds ? If no why are you peddling that pedo funded shit? It was Ian who noted that gay marriage happened strictly because of intense campaigning/ lobbying /harassment of obama that he did anything. not exactly neolib catspaws .
What’s next, you start agreeing with the heritage foundation that womens sports should be abolished ?
and before someone throws some economic rights vs social rights stuff, well those social rights are economic rights . If you dont consider them human they dont even get to have a credit card or open a banking account. Let alone have any real job with any protections. Did you know that until teh gays forced obama to sign the fucking line, they couldnt even get married in most of the us?? yeah you know how married couples enjoy many ECONOMIC BENEFITS etc. among other important more sentimental and human things… but go on on how all the LGTBTQ++ !!!11!!! are just a grand conspiracy to serve the rich and corporations, ( or even more FUCKING INSANE go on about your even grander conspiracies of how their out to confuse the children!!! teh children !! gods damd you take espstine cash dont you? ) you can tell cause they do the performative once a year thing to signal they are the puppetmasters !!! We know the politcos are bastards thats not the fault of the NBYS for fuck sake . the furries are not the ones ratfucking elections. IT IS THE RICH. there are not covens of lesbian wicthes and gay warlocks out to seduce the young . Can anyone not see its always fucking conservitive men who are raping the kids!!! . the trans are not our to get you, or the children, they just want to do their dumb nerd hobbies in peace. Stop throwing minorities under the bus, its disturbing and disappointing but not unexpected because that is exactly what many said would happen, in the left’s continual circular firing squad. Though I suspect paid ratfucking and its still not the furries.
david lamy
@ different clue
I’ve have noted that the acronym TDS has become passé on italic Naked Capitalism.
spud
many blacks locked out of social security, but not all, many were eligible from day one. and when they all became eligible, they were accepted because the country felt economically secure.
same when truman desegregated the military, it was a huge economic, and social right.
but then again, the G.I. bill secured economic rights
g.i. bill went into effect in 1944, desegregated the military, 1949.
Yes, Black veterans were eligible for the G.I. Bill starting in 1944, but they faced significant barriers that often prevented them from fully benefiting from its provisions, particularly in the South due to segregation and discrimination.
The National WWII Museum National Archives
Yes, Southern politicians and military leaders opposed President Truman’s desegregation efforts, particularly Executive Order 9981, which mandated equality in the armed forces. This resistance included threats of filibuster and pushback from military brass who feared integration would harm national security.
ebsco.com National Park Service
Opposition to Truman’s Desegregation Efforts
Southern Politicians’ Resistance
Southern politicians strongly opposed President Truman’s desegregation initiatives, particularly Executive Order 9981. Their resistance included:
Threats of Filibuster: Southern Senators threatened to obstruct legislative processes to prevent desegregation.
Political Pushback: Many Southern leaders viewed integration as a direct challenge to their social and political order.
Military leaders also expressed significant opposition to Truman’s order. Their concerns included:
National Security Fears: Some military brass believed that integrating the armed forces could undermine national security.
Resistance to Change: High-ranking officials were reluctant to alter long-standing segregation practices within the military.
The opposition from both Southern politicians and military leaders created a challenging environment for Truman’s desegregation efforts. Despite this resistance, Truman remained committed to promoting equality in the armed forces.
National Park Service ebsco.com
——–
because americans felt economically secure, truman got it done even with pushback. the pushback failed.
economic rights are never easy to secure, but once secure, its hard to take them back.
when you are desperate, stressed, hungry or homeless, most do not care about gay rights or abortion rights, etc. those rights become easy targets.
spud
different clue:
i was tossed out of Naked Capitalism for my views on fascism, free trade, neo-liberalism, policing, etc. it was like deja vu all over again, like when i was tossed out of the democratic party.
Dan Kelly
warvgilent, I understand your anger and I agree with some of what you say but we obviously cannot have a male ‘transition’ and play female sports.
It just doesn’t work.
What are we going to have testosterone levels checked like wrestlers’ weigh-ins before the main event?
‘they just want to do their dumb nerd hobbies in peace’
No.
Some of them have set up tables with sexually-themed books and dildos explaining how to use condoms in the front of libraries so people have to pass right by them before they go inside to check out a Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys book.
I’m dating myself, I know,
I’m very ‘liberal’ when it comes to ‘the sex thing’ or so I thought until the rise of the transgender mania.
Most people are simply going to find it bizarre at minimum that a person physically messes around with their genitalia.
Modern surgery lends it a guise of authenticity.
A woman who ‘transitions’ to a man via a surgeon who builds her a dick cannot produce sperm or cum the way I and other men – straight or gay or bi or non-committal – do.
And likewise a man who ‘becomes’ a woman via chopping his cock off on the surgeon’s table cannot ejaculate the way a woman does nor even produce that wonderful creamy lubricant many of us have come to love and depend on for intimacy.
Of course you can always buy synthetic lube.
I say this as someone who doesn’t ‘identify’ as ‘heterosexual’ but I am a man who is very attracted to females.
Well, some of them anyway…
We’ve gone from disgusting wholesale repression to disgusting wholesale narcissism.
‘Tolerance’ should perhaps be more than ‘well,, I’ll tolerate them but that is all!’ but it has extended well beyond ‘tolerance’ and acceptance to its own form of facism in many cases.
I really mean that.
Get over yourselves.
And every time you see a rainbow-trans flag accompanying a sign saying ‘Everyone is welcome here! And we mean everyone!’ be sure to set up a table with some food and a grill and some tents so all the poor and needy – many of whom don’t support ‘trans issues’ rather are just trying to survive — be sure to help out.
—
‘DEI programs exist to force captive audiences of people to achieve ‘equitable’ redistribution of resources, status, and wealth according to neo-Marxist Identity Theories like Critical Race Theory.
Equity is an administered political economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal, including shares of social and cultural capital. In other words, it’s an expansion of socialism.
In other words, it does not mean that everyone is treated equally, it means certain groups are prioritised through societal adjustments.
So we see that CILIPS are promoting the safeguarding of certain groups, such as those who ‘identify’ as LGBT, over other groups, such as young children whose parents may not yet want them to be exposed to graphic sexual content.’
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-so-called-banned-books-in-libraries-are-actually-child-safeguarding-risks
You are accusing others of being corrupted by Epstein money but they are corrupting you too every bit as much.
Who wants to be known as an ‘LGBTQ…xyz’ person?
It’s a castrated identity, by design.
‘The new housing is being developed by Manchester City Council, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual (LGBT) Foundation, and the Great Places Housing Group. As Gavin White for Manchester City Council explained, “The Russell Road scheme is a flagship, first-of-its-kind development that will create a safe and welcoming housing community for older LGBTQ+ people in Manchester”.
The Council hopes to “provide an open and inclusive place of psychological safety for the older LGBTQ+ community”.
An LGBT Foundation report shares the same vision:
The generations who fought for our LGBT rights in decades past may find themselves isolated and fearful of the future, dreaming of a housing scheme where they could live out the rest of their lives with others from their family of choice, where they did not have to hide their identity or fear homophobia, biphobia or transphobia.
Lesbophobia presumably does not exist, as it has no name.’
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/whose-dreams-the-lgbtq-manchester-housing-scheme
Welcome to the wonderful world of isms and phobias.
Remember the ‘log cabin conservatives’?!
Yeah, they fuck in the ass but they’re fiscally responsible so…
Do Muslims have those ‘gay conversion’ therapies the way Christians do?
You know, the ones where the guy goes and is allegedly cured of his ‘gayness’ and then he holds a press conference to announce his ‘straight coming out’ wherein his voice and entire demeanor remains faggily effeminate such that you find yourself screaming at the TV: ‘You’re gay dude, it’s okay!
https://youtu.be/-gkK8cvsaiI?t=518
‘So we see that CILIPS are promoting the safeguarding of certain groups, such as those who ‘identify’ as LGBT, over other groups, such as young children whose parents may not yet want them to be exposed to graphic sexual content.’
I don’t like it when ‘save the kids’ is invoked in order to curtail civil liberties.
And I think kids are ‘able to handle’ the wonderful naturalness of their own sexuality and desires much more than the conservative mindset gives credit to or allows for.
That said, I understand why some parents don’t want these things to be salivated sans their own input or guidance.
I certainly understand the pushback based simply on how many of these ‘tolerance and acceptance’ groups operate and their own rather judgemental demeanor.
‘Lesbophobia presumably does not exist, as it has no name.’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Qtm6DjlkI
different clue
@spud,
It would have seemed to me that your views on fascism, free trade, neo-liberalism, policing, etc. would have been very similar to the views at Naked Capitalism itself. Have I been wrong about that? If not, then I wonder whether your enbanment was due to somebody there feeling personally insulted or slighted or challenged at a personal level, and deciding to get personally even.
I will say this: while Lambert Strether was accused of driving many people off of Corrente Wire ( which I would know nothing about), my strong feeling is that it was NOT Lambert Strether who was behind the bannings at NaCap.
spud
different clue:
“I will say this: while Lambert Strether was accused of driving many people off of Corrente Wire ( which I would know nothing about), my strong feeling is that it was NOT Lambert Strether who was behind the bannings at NaCap.”
you would be correct.
Dan Kelly
‘I remember Lambert Strether and especially Yves Smith spending the last few months before the election claiming that Project 2025 was just an idle wish list / expression of conservative grievances and nothing to pay any attention to. Certainly nothing worth voting against ( by voting against its supporters and agents). ‘
Yes, that is certainly what went down at NC. It is hard through the ether to really get a handle on people. We can’t look each other in the eye and we can’t gauge physical cues etc. But is sure felt to me like they were actively dissuading people from the Dems – who were mainstream establishment let’s remember.
I mean, Kamala Harris is arguably the stupidest candidate ever thrust on us.
I believe she was picked because she couldn’t win.
‘And I remember separately that Lambert Strether tried his hardest to pretend that their was no insurrection or even riot at the Capitol, or if there was, it was organized by false-flag pro-Democrat FBI agents and informants.’
Yes. And who knows exactly what happened but there clearly was intel involvement. Those people – most of whom were peaceful though you probably don’t believe that – those folks were led to slaughter just as the left is led to slaughter.
You weren’t really scared of that dude with the moose hat?
They weren’t any serious danger and that was the deep state’s way of fencing in and gathering intel on any populist right revolutionaries.
It’s not my kind of crowd but I understand the anger which was, as always, largely based on economics with race and sex and the like being amplified in the interest of othering and division.
—
‘If voting changed anything they’d outlaw it.’
Do we believe this?
If we did then I suppose we wouldn’t spend so much time arguing about elections.
The vast majority of people don’t vote and among those who do the featured actors from each party usually get around the same percentage.
So it’s very easy to manipulate the elections via tampering with the proprietary machines and this only has to be done in a few select areas to swing the vote entirely.
There was clearly tampering with Bernie’s vote totals in Iowa and other locales but Bernie being Bernie he didn’t pursue it.
The genocide would have continued under Harris as she herself was happy to tell her donors first and then the electorate in the runup to the election.
[her support of the Jewish State genocide against the native population of Palestine is the primary reason she didn’t get elected…assuming the elections are legitimate]
And they would have done the ICE stuff on the down-low a la Obama…it wouldn’t be as intense and amped up as it is under Trump.
I do not know that they would have pulled a DOGE but those privatization and ‘efficiency’ maneuvers were on the agenda that the dems always adhere to so they would have gotten something done no doubt.
Neither would be as extreme as the repubs but then no one would really be helped economically at all either, thus leaving the door open for repubs next time.
Throw the bums out!
The Iran war would certainly be a power trip for old Kamala Willie Brown Getty AIPAC Hollywood Harris.
‘economic rights are never easy to secure, but once secure, its hard to take them back.
when you are desperate, stressed, hungry or homeless, most do not care about gay rights or abortion rights, etc. those rights become easy targets.’
Amen.
I also wanted to say that it isn’t just ‘neoliberalism’ rather it is also ‘neoconservatism’ and ‘neo’ also applies to ‘neo-Marxism’ which includes all the ‘critical race theory’ crap as well as the sex crap among all the other things these people get their minds into.
They all ‘arose’ mutually and with the same underlying intention.
‘Tucker Carlson and MT Greene want a purified White Power Christian Nationalist Third Party.’
That won’t go anywhere but it would behoove them to at least feature a black dude or a latina, I mean a LatinX chick.
Sorry. I misspoke.
Imagine Tucker Carlson and Colonel MacGregor dancing and singing soul music with a fat black woman, errr ‘person of color’ with the latter sporting an RFK Jr T-shirt and a Casey Means wearable.
It holds as much appeal as a Jill Stein does to the working class.
‘It will mark the final separation between Black America and non-Black America. Eventually Black America will form a Black America First movement by whatever name. Those non-Black persons or even possibly groups who think their viable-survival future may well lie in pursuing Proximity to Blackness may well seek a junior-partner status at the edges of the Black America First movement, when it emerges, which it will.’
Remember when Warren Buffet met with LeBron James?
https://www.newsbreak.com/basketballnetwork-net-1600330/4583944889953-he-s-smart-financially-warren-buffett-once-praised-lebron-james-for-his-business-acumen
I wonder which side Pat Mahomes and his wife will choose?
They are but one example among many.
‘And I could see an Indian America First movement arising among the Tribes and Nations. They might well be a co-equal partner with a Black America First movement.’
I don’t see it happening although a Robin Wall Kimmerer may go on Oprah to plug a book.
Maybe Kamala Harris will start braiding sweetgrass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVZuj-g-Dtk&t=141
TSC
@Ian I am not sure if this is correct: “At one time, by law, all medical institutions were not for profit, including health care. That was repealed in the 70s and the predictable result happened.” I am not aware of any such law. For-profit healthcare is a proud American tradition and has always been quite widespread. The only thing that comes close was an IRS rule promulgated in 1956 that, to be considered not-for-profit, the hospital had to treat all comers, even patients who cannot pay. As I understand, this rule was rescinded in 1969 and replaced by a de-facto requirement that it is sufficient to run an emergency room that takes the patients who cannot pay.
TSC
@ Spud Ha! Yves is quite idiosyncratic. She believes coffee to be harmful. My comments were repeatedly filtered out when I noted that these views are contrary to all the scientific evidence that coffee is good for your health.
spud
TSC:
did you get tossed?
spud
TSC:
yep, coffee is life!!!!! ice tea is not far behind!!!!
Carborundum
An example of the type of “too essential to fail” phenomenon I was thinking with the bigs:
https://www.propublica.org/article/general-dynamics-artillery-factory-failed
different clue
Here is a video of aggregated video vignettes bearing on part of the reason why America is abandoning America’s poor.
I promise that I have spent a few minutes of my scarce pre-clockin time watching it so I know those first couple of minutes are relevant to the topic. If it devolves into irrelevancy after that, one can always click out.
White Folks Are OUTRAGED With Black People’s SILENCE As Economy CRUMBLES | Blacks Aren’t SCARED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bunpudg2fk
( It also helps re-demonstrate that America is not just a ” way bigger Canada”. America has a different internal wiring diagram than Canada has? Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? For sure it is a real thing.)
different clue
( Please, readers . . . . replace that “?” after ” than Canada has” with a ” . ” )