The End of Socialism?

[Drakus79]

I very rarely update my blog, but my latest post was related to the theory so I thought I would post it here.

http://drakus79.tumblr.com/post/16565644...-socialism

[pbrower2a]

We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system. Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.

[Warren Dew]

(09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system.  Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.

Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President.  Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.

[pbrower2a]

(09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system.  Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.

Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President.  Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.

...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.

[Warren Dew]

(09-25-2017, 10:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system.  Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.

Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President.  Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.

...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.

There were no bank failures that caused money to disappear, partly because we had the FDIC, which we didn't in 1930.  The spending in the "stimulus" bill didn't boost the economy any more than any other corporate welfare, and was part of the economic gestalt that prevented an actual recovery for the rest of the Obama administration.

[David Horn]

(09-25-2017, 10:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 10:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system.  Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.

Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President.  Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.

...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.

There were no bank failures that caused money to disappear, partly because we had the FDIC, which we didn't in 1930.  The spending in the "stimulus" bill didn't boost the economy any more than any other corporate welfare, and was part of the economic gestalt that prevented an actual recovery for the rest of the Obama administration.

Let's all agree that the Obama years were a bit unique.  When Ted Kennedy died, the ability to pass anything without Republicans onboard was dead.  After 2010. the GOP controlled Congress, and their mantra was focused on keeping Obama from doing anything, period.  Even the stimulus bill was watered down with much of it in the form of tax benefits to the rich and corporations, so the Obama years can't really be called "The Obama Years".

[pbrower2a]

OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Warren Dew]

(09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession.  You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.

[pbrower2a]

(09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession.  You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.

As with the meltdown of 1929.4-1932.4, the year and a half of the meltdown of 2007.4-2009.2 started with the bursting of a bubble. Bubbles devout capital that accountants book  but end up worthless. The Reagan tax cut put an end to stagflation which was not the problem of either the 1920s or the Double-Zero Decade. The "Reagan recovery" depended upon the lowering of expectations, with people settling for less than their dreams (like recent college graduates settling for jobs in retail and food service). The slow-growth 1950s was the result of government trying to pay off national debt from World War II.

Economic reality is very different late in a 1T (circa 1960), the 2T/3T cusp (early 1980s) and the start of a Crisis Era. The market crashes of 1930 and 2008 were very similar in severity and immediate effect. he last three Crisis Eras began with financial panics (1857, 1930 -- the real crash was in 1930, and 2008). In a 3T people enjoy the warmth of an active volcano. The 4T begins with the eruption of the volcano.

Tax cuts mean something when the economy is humming along. When revenues crash in an economic meltdown, tax cuts are practically meaningless. In an economic meltdown, businesses are rightly more concerned with sales revenue than with taxes paid. It's the bubble that devours capital that could be going into productive activities that does the damage; the panic shows how pointless the investments were. Americans were not investing in plant and equipment.

The meltdown that began the Great Depression began when FDR backed the banks. The Obama bull market began when the government backed the banks. The difference between the two meltdowns was when the meltdowns ended, and not their severity after a year and a half.

It is best that the worst actors, the ones who created the mess, go out of business. Government can promote the recovery of others. The auto industry was not particularly culpable in the real-estate fraud that was the illusion of wealth-creation in the Double-Zero decade.

Something else is happening this time: the end of scarcity in manufactured goods. There is no easy way in which to make money by simply making stuff. America got through the Great Depression  by making more cars, appliances, and furniture that people did not have going into the Great Depression. By most accounts, life was better in the late 1930s than in the late 1920s. All that was down was stock prices. Consumer electronics are often dirt-cheap. You can buy a cell phone for about $20 bucks. Sure, it is a 'dumb phone' that won't give images or data... I have a reader and a camera, so I don't need data or photographic capacity on my cell phone.

Radio Shack is dead. J C Penney and Sears are dying. Toys 'R' Us is in a 'reorganization' intended to protect its suppliers. That's retail.

[Warren Dew]

(09-25-2017, 06:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession.  You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.

As with the meltdown of 1929.4-1932.4, the year and a half of the meltdown of 2007.4-2009.2 started with the bursting of a bubble. Bubbles devout capital that accountants book  but end up worthless. The Reagan tax cut put an end to stagflation which was not the problem of either the 1920s or the Double-Zero Decade.

So unlike most on the left here, you agree that the Reagan tax cuts were useful.  You're just arguing that the circumstances were different in 2008.  Sure.

Quote:The "Reagan recovery" depended upon the lowering of expectations, with people settling for less than their dreams (like recent college graduates settling for jobs in retail and food service).

College students settling for jobs in retail and food service was only a temporary effect during the 1981-1982 time frame, unlike today when it seems permanent.  In the 1980s, eventually the ones who were competent went back to getting jobs comparable to what they would have gotten in the 1970s.

That said, you're correct that there was lowering of expectations relative to the 1960s.  This was because the 1970s were so terrible that people were glad to get anything at all.  They got slightly rising wages in the 1980s, plus the boost in take home pay from the tax cuts, which all looked good relative to the declining real wages of the 1970s.  They did not get a return to the rapidly rising wages of the 1960s.

But that's all about wages, not about economic growth.  Starting in the early 1970s, wages detached from productivity.  Thereafter, real wages were largely stagnant - falling a bit in the 1970s, rising a bit in the 1980s - but productivity continued to improve, permitting economic growth.  It's just that the benefits of economic growth after about 1972 flowed to the producers of raw materials and the owners of capital rather than to the workers.

Quote:The slow-growth 1950s was the result of government trying to pay off national debt from World War II.

Economic reality is very different late in a 1T (circa 1960), the 2T/3T cusp (early 1980s) and the start of a Crisis Era. The market crashes of 1930 and 2008 were very similar in severity and immediate effect. he last three Crisis Eras began with financial panics (1857, 1930 -- the real crash was in 1930, and 2008). In a 3T people enjoy the warmth of an active volcano. The 4T begins with the eruption of the volcano.  

Tax cuts mean something when the economy is humming along. When revenues crash in an economic meltdown, tax cuts are practically meaningless. In an economic meltdown, businesses are rightly more concerned with sales revenue than with taxes paid. It's the bubble that devours capital that could be going into productive activities that does the damage; the panic shows how pointless the investments were. Americans were not investing in plant and equipment.

Good to see you agree with the Austrian analysis of what happens to capital in a bubble.  But you have to remember that the 2001 crash was also the bursting of a bubble.  Tax rate cuts were part of the solution to that one, from which we recovered much better than we did in 2008.

That said, I'm not arguing that further tax rate cuts were the way to go in 2008.  I do think that Obama's tax rate increase was foolish, but that doesn't mean further cuts were the answer.  Bush had gotten tax rates to about the right place, neither too high nor too low.

Quote:The meltdown that began the Great Depression began when FDR backed the banks. The Obama bull market began when the government backed the banks. The difference between the two meltdowns was when the meltdowns ended, and not their severity after a year and a half.

I assume you mean that the meltdown that began the Great Depression ended, not began, when FDR backed the banks.  If not, please explain.

If so, I agree.  And while I note that it was Bush rather than Obama who backed the banks, I agree that ended the immediate meltdown in 2008.  However, ending the meltdown is not the same thing as facilitating a recovery; more on that in a bit.

Also, the FDIC did not exist in 1930.  In 2008, it did.  That provided a better option than bailing out the banks.  In particular:

Quote:It is best that the worst actors, the ones who created the mess, go out of business.

Yes.  And we allowed that to happen in 2001, which is why we didn't get a long period of stagnation afterwards.

In 2008, the bad actors were people who had taken out mortgages they couldn't afford and banks who gave them those mortgages.  People can't really go out of business, though many rightly had to abandon their houses, so the Fed attempted to soften the bursting of the housing bubble.  The Fed still hasn't liquidated their mortgage securities, so it remains to be seen whether that has been successful.

The bad actor banks, however, were bailed out.  With the FDIC in place, it would have been better to provide the FDIC with an unlimited line of credit, and allow the bad banks to fail and their assets to be sold.  As long as the FDIC was in place to make depositors whole, the bank failures would not have destroyed trust in the banking system.

Quote:Government can promote the recovery of others.  The auto industry was not particularly culpable in the real-estate fraud that was the illusion of wealth-creation in the Double-Zero decade.

The industries that did not participate in the bubble do not have false capital on their balance sheets to work off.  They don't need government intervention to recover, and government intervention doesn't help.

In the case of the auto industry, Ford survived without help.  The government helped Chrysler and GM, which both went bankrupt anyway.  Government bailouts of the auto industry did essentially nothing.

Cash for clunkers might have helped a bit, but its primary benefit was to get some old gas guzzlers off the road.

Quote:Something else is happening this time: the end of scarcity in manufactured goods. There is no easy way in which to make money by simply making stuff. America got through the Great Depression  by making more cars, appliances, and furniture that people did not have going into the Great Depression. By most accounts, life was better in the late 1930s than in the late 1920s. All that was down was stock prices. Consumer electronics are often dirt-cheap. You can buy a cell phone for about $20 bucks. Sure, it is a 'dumb phone' that won't give images or data... I have a reader and a camera, so I don't need data or photographic capacity on my cell phone.

Radio Shack is dead. J C Penney and Sears are dying. Toys 'R' Us is in a 'reorganization' intended to protect its suppliers. That's retail.

To the contrary; by most accounts, life in the late 1930s was still worse than in the late 1920s, before the crash.  Civilian consumption didn't recover until after WWII.  It was better only for the high end of the labor market that were part of the FDR coalition, and far worse for the rest of the labor market who were not in the coalition.

More importantly, it was thought in the 1930s that we'd reached the end of scarcity in manufactured goods as well.  The cars, appliances, and furniture that you mention were being manufactured in larger amounts than there was a market for, and manufacturers had to resort to increasingly desperate schemes to get rid of them, notably deferred payments.

The most notable thing about your post, though, is that you don't even attempt to rebut my primary point:  Obama's supposed "stimulus" spending did not result in a recovery.  Just like FDR's policies - other than the prevention of bank failures - Obama's policies just served to keep us mired at the economic bottom for close to a decade.  Only now, with Obama's policies starting to be reversed, are we seeing growth edging above 2% in the beginnings of an actual recovery.

[David Horn]

(09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession.  You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.

Your analysis is simplistic at best.  But just to settle the growth argument, here is the rate of real growth from 1961 to present:



BTW, the big bump in 1983 is more likely the result of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the largest tax increase in US history.

[Warren Dew]

(09-26-2017, 10:16 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession.  You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.

Your analysis is simplistic at best.  But just to settle the growth argument, here is the rate of real growth from 1961 to present:

Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.

[David Horn]

(09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.

I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder.  After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted.  Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.

I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase.  At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.

[Warren Dew]

(09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.

I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder.  After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted.  Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.

I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase.  At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.

If you would actually look at your own graph, you'd see that the spike in growth was already starting in 1982 before the supposed tax increase took effect.  Of course, you're also ignoring the fact that the supposed increase didn't actually increase any income tax rates in any bracket.

[Eric the Green]

(09-25-2017, 10:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 10:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system.  Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.

Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President.  Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.

...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.

There were no bank failures that caused money to disappear, partly because we had the FDIC, which we didn't in 1930.  The spending in the "stimulus" bill didn't boost the economy any more than any other corporate welfare, and was part of the economic gestalt that prevented an actual recovery for the rest of the Obama administration.

Quiet incorrect. The economy was rescued from going over a cliff in 2009 that would have resulted in Great Depression Volume 2, or worse. What prevented a greater recovery after the stimulus in 2009 was, first of all, the Republican victory on Black Tuesday Nov.2, 2010. Brower was exactly right; Americans failed to learn after 2008 that Republican policies fail. That day prevented progress on anything for the rest of the decade. Funds for public employment were cut, and that offset the lingering effects of the stimulus, which itself was stopped. Instead, austerity was imposed. The Obama stimulus was the only thing that helped the economy since the 2008 crash. After that, the only game in town was QE3, which was mainly a stimulus for the wealthy bankers, but it had some small trickle-down effect.

Second, nothing was done in 2009 or since about the structural deficiencies in the economy. Besides the endemic Republican policies of the previous 30 years, whose results of much-higher inequality depress wages and spending money among the people, computer and robotic automation and globalized free trade have caused the loss of many jobs for Americans. These problems just continue to erode American employment, and I can't see any answer to it except a return to socialism (or at least what right-wingers CALL socialism, meaning social or economic aid programs). Without it, people will have no money to spend, and the economy will continue to stagnate. Trickle-down, austerity, Reaganoid-blame-welfare economics has failed and is outdated. That is the policy that has "ended" as a viable answer to anything.

[pbrower2a]

(09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.

I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder.  After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted.  Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.

I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase.  At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.

Republicans wanted Obama to fail so that he would be a one-and-done President after which America would have vote in Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, almost all State legislatures, and would vote in a Hard Right Republican President, after which America would be the sort of place in which the common man is promised pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die in return for suffering for the Master Classes -- forever. 

It took eight years instead of four years. How long will it last? Corrupt, brutal, selfish leadership such as is the current norm in the America rarely yields power willingly.

[Eric the Green]

The GDP statistic means nothing. It doesn't matter how much growth there is, if all its benefits are reserved for the richest Americans. That has been the case since Reaganomics was imposed in 1981. We have been stagnate ever since, or worse.

The 2009 stimulus itself was limited, since about a third of it was tax cuts to begin with, in order to mollify Republicans and Silent-generation Democrats. Since 2011 we have had austerity instead. And Warren Dew wants to give Trump credit for 2% growth. But only Trump and his followers give Trump and his GOP minions any credit for keeping the economy from crashing so far, which is all that has happened. Any benefits still extant are due to the Obama stimulus. We are lucky that Trump has not crashed the economy yet.

Trickle-down will fail again. So far though, Trump's "recovery" policy consists of a travel ban and little else, since he has not passed any policies and accomplished next to nothing yet; not even an infrastructure spending bill nor a tax cut for his rich buddies. The only thing Trump has accomplished (besides, perhaps, unleashing some polluting industries through relaxed regulations) is to appoint Scott Pruitt, who is hard at work polluting our environment and making sure we get many more more-deadly hurricanes, and Jeff Sessions, who is hard at work making sure that police can continue to kill unarmed young black guys with impunity. We can see how well this is going over among the sports teams and their fans. I guess you could say that Trump's "building stimulus" program is Harvey, Irma and Mary, but in the meantime it's not good for the economy or the national debt for so many people needing government relief funds, and unable to function and do their jobs as a result of the effects of the hurricanes which Scott Pruitt and his predecessors over the last 35 years have imposed upon us.

[Eric the Green]

(09-26-2017, 05:14 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.

I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder.  After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted.  Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.

I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase.  At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.

Republicans wanted Obama to fail so that he would be a one-and-done President after which America would have voted in Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, almost all State legislatures, and would vote in a Hard Right Republican President, after which America would be the sort of place in which the common man is promised pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die in return for suffering for the Master Classes -- forever. 

It took eight years instead of four years. How long will it last? Corrupt, brutal, selfish leadership such as is the current norm in America rarely yields power willingly.

How right you are.

[David Horn]

(09-26-2017, 03:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.

I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder.  After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted.  Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.

I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase.  At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.

If you would actually look at your own graph, you'd see that the spike in growth was already starting in 1982 before the supposed tax increase took effect.  Of course, you're also ignoring the fact that the supposed increase didn't actually increase any income tax rates in any bracket.

No, it corrected the massive drop in revenues from the Kemp-Roth tax cut. 

TEFRA in Wikipedia Wrote:The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:

• repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
  
• tightened safe harbor leasing rules
  
• required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
  
• instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
  
• tightened completed contract accounting rules
  
• increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

... but it didn't raise rates, per se.

[rds]

I think socialism is alive, well and hidden at the moment. Technological changes coming down the pike are going to require a whole lot of socialism, or roughly 7 out of 8 human beings need to be disposed of. It's anyone's guess how this is going to play out. We know where the 1% and their stooges stand on the issue, but I'm guessing that as the 7 out of 8 start to realize their time is short, they'll object in no uncertain terms. This will start to really play out in the next decade amidst the crisis, and I expect it will be the chief topic during the whole seculum.