Winners and Losers of this 4T

[beechnut79]

Thread for thoughts on what issues will be successfully addressed during the course of the 4T which most likely won’t end until the close of the just opened decade, and which will likely be shoved down the rug not to be dealt with until the following 2T? Global warming and climate change are often said to be most pressing but would require even more sacrifice than most of us have had forced upon us during this pandemic. And we are still way too convenience obsessed. The 4T in the book was said to be a time when social issues tend to be dealt with and no longer deferred. And yet I continue to sense mostly a kick the can down the road scenario. So far the pandemic has pushed most other issues to the sidelines. It has now been, for example, nearly a half century since the big gasoline shortage forced us to wait in long lines, calling our dependency on the automobile in question. And yet we are even more dependent on the private car than we were then, with even more traffic congestion despite a small break from it during the pandemic. Current social distancing guidelines fly in the face of what we should be doing to combat climate change. So, what direction do you think we will be moving in and which issues are most likely to receive airplay?

[sbarrera]

With the race to the White House coming down to a contest between the Mafia state run by the Trump organization, and the remnants of neoliberalism as embodied by O'Biden, I would say the Progressive dream has come to an end. The blue wave will at best be a bluish-purple wave if it successfully washes the GOP out of power. However, certain Progressive agenda items have successfully taken root and won't be going away even if the GOP maintains control of the government. Either way, the pandemic continues to have its effect on society and the economy, which will be more consolidation of the digital economy and a more precarious life for those outside of it.

Here is my list of winners and losers.

Winner: Big Business, Loser: Small Business
Winner: Capital, Loser: Labor
Winner: Digital workers, Loser: Essential workers
Winner: Gays, Loser: Transgenders
Winner: Marijuana users, Loser: Opioid users
Winner: AR-15 collectors, Loser: Gun control advocates
Winner: Whites, Loser: non-Whites
and because I can't resist...
Winner: Coronavirus, Loser: Humanity

[Eric the Green]

(09-04-2020, 08:38 AM)sbarrera Wrote: With the race to the White House coming down to a contest between the Mafia state run by the Trump organization, and the remnants of neoliberalism as embodied by O'Biden, I would say the Progressive dream has come to an end. The blue wave will at best be a bluish-purple wave if it successfully washes the GOP out of power. However, certain Progressive agenda items have successfully taken root and won't be going away even if the GOP maintains control of the government. Either way, the pandemic continues to have its effect on society and the economy, which will be more consolidation of the digital economy and a more precarious life for those outside of it.

Here is my list of winners and losers.

Winner: Big Business, Loser: Small Business
Winner: Capital, Loser: Labor
Winner: Digital workers, Loser: Essential workers
Winner: Gays, Loser: Transgenders
Winner: Marijuana users, Loser: Opioid users
Winner: AR-15 collectors, Loser: Gun control advocates
Winner: Whites, Loser: non-Whites
and because I can't resist...
Winner: Coronavirus, Loser: Humanity

Steve, I agree that we can't underestimate the capacity of the USA people to waffle and dawdle and go blind as the planet and civilization burns. Unfortunately, it's too early to say for sure who the winners and losers will be. Biden seems to be losing his grip on Florida, which will put the election outcome more in doubt. I still can't predict the election. Even if Trump wins, we still won't know how the 4T turns out, but the odds will be against any progressive winners in that case. Maybe marijuana users, although Trump's former Attorney General tried to wipe them out too. If Trump wins, he will consolidate authoritarian power, unless there is such strong resistance that the midterms do happen as planned, and Trump/Pence is reduced to a figurehead by them by 2023 and the somewhat-progressive Democrats take over from there.

First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely. The worst you can say about Democrats in that regard is that they were humbled by Republican neo-liberal (aka Reaganomics, free-market fundamentalist) power, and compromised with it too much (e.g. repeal of Glass-Steagall). But they didn't go all the way. Wages were raised and many regulations were still in place. By the way, calling Democrats "neo-liberals" is as inaccurate as calling any Republican a "populist."

What Biden will do about progressive dreams is still unknown. He may waffle and buckle-under, or he may take a lot of advice from Sanders and Warren. It does not depend so much on Biden, as on the people and what the political winds are. Politicians are blown by them. So, it depends on the people. Demographically, the people are further left now than they were during the height of neo-liberalism in the 1980s through the 2000s. So I would not say the dream is dead, even if it only makes moderate strides forward. In the conservative USA, that's all we can usually expect. But we the USA aren't as conservative a country as we were a few decades ago.

[Eric the Green]

(09-03-2020, 10:44 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Thread for thoughts on what issues will be successfully addressed during the course of the 4T which most likely won’t end until the close of the just opened decade, and which will likely be shoved down the rug not to be dealt with until the following 2T? Global warming and climate change are often said to be most pressing but would require even more sacrifice than most of us have had forced upon us during this pandemic. And we are still way too convenience obsessed. The 4T in the book was said to be a time when social issues tend to be dealt with and no longer deferred. And yet I continue to sense mostly a kick the can down the road scenario. So far the pandemic has pushed most other issues to the sidelines. It has now been, for example, nearly a half century since the big gasoline shortage forced us to wait in long lines, calling our dependency on the automobile in question. And yet we are even more dependent on the private car than we were then, with even more traffic congestion despite a small break from it during the pandemic. Current social distancing guidelines fly in the face of what we should be doing to combat climate change. So, what direction do you think we will be moving in and which issues are most likely to receive airplay?

I don't think climate change requires more sacrifice than the pandemic has, by a long shot. Only the rich oil/fossil barons will have to sacrifice, unless they adapt and re-invest. Energy alternatives are there, and the skeptics about them are dead wrong. It's a question of who is elected; that is all. We will need more transit, but the car is still viable too if it is electric or hydrogen-powered using non-fossil energy to generate. More people working from home is one legacy of the pandemic that will decrease traffic. If Biden is elected and a good vaccine distributed, then social distancing should and probably will be relaxed, hopefully leaving the anti-vaxxers to their fate, rather than being coddled by continued social distancing and masks. Racism and police misconduct could well be reduced, but racism/xenophobia is a disease that needs continual treatment. Eventually it cannot survive inevitable globalization.

[pbrower2a]

(09-04-2020, 08:38 AM)sbarrera Wrote: With the race to the White House coming down to a contest between the Mafia state run by the Trump organization, and the remnants of neoliberalism as embodied by O'Biden, I would say the Progressive dream has come to an end. The blue wave will at best be a bluish-purple wave if it successfully washes the GOP out of power. However, certain Progressive agenda items have successfully taken root and won't be going away even if the GOP maintains control of the government. Either way, the pandemic continues to have its effect on society and the economy, which will be more consolidation of the digital economy and a more precarious life for those outside of it.

Here is my list of winners and losers.

Winner: Big Business, Loser: Small Business
Winner: Capital, Loser: Labor
Winner: Digital workers, Loser: Essential workers
Winner: Gays, Loser: Transgenders
Winner: Marijuana users, Loser: Opioid users
Winner: AR-15 collectors, Loser: Gun control advocates
Winner: Whites, Loser: non-Whites
and because I can't resist...
Winner: Coronavirus, Loser: Humanity

The Crisis is not yet over. Winners and losers are yet to be determined. So far any American must recognize that the economic elites have completely humiliated everyone else, coming close to establishing a New Peonage, if not slavery. Landlords are kings, and renters are losers so far -- big. Gays won, it is still ambiguous about transgender people, but child-molesting perverts have definitely lost. We have yet to see how the gun issue resolves itself. Sporting weapons only, and if you need defense, then call on "R. Ottweiler" or "D. O. Berman", either of which is a very good reason for people to behave themselves.

The typical Crisis has had the Grim Reaper as the winner and Humanity as the loser. At one stage of the last Crisis one could have had:

Winner: Nazis, Loser: Jews
Winner: Nazis. Loser: liberal democracy

but in the end, the surviving Jews at lest got Israel or at least easy immigration to America, and leading Nazis got Hell. (This may be heretical by any religious standard, but if there is a just God who stands in judgment of us, then He can choose which theological Truth that He represents. I can only imagine the sickening feeling that a Nazi felt when discovering that Almighty God is Jewish. I can only imagine what Osama bin Laden felt when discovering that God is an American, or that bombers or the 16th Street Baptist Church in "Bombingham, Alabama"found out at death that God is a black American Christian. And, yes, Slobodan Milosevich was likely shocked to discover that God is Allah and Muhammad is his chief Prophet. If one is just, then one has little to fear in the Manifestation of God's Choosing). Child molesters, beware: you are going to be f---ed in ways you never thought possible, and those ways will be unpleasant..

Donald Trump has achieved something I never thought possible after the 1970's: mass dissent against him, complete with peaceful protests and outrageous  violence.  This is rare in American history, and this signals the end of an era in American history. A Crisis is the end of one era and the beginning of another, typically the second Skowronek cycle of political life in one Saeculum and the first in another.

[David Horn]

(09-04-2020, 02:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely. The worst you can say about Democrats in that regard is that they were humbled by Republican neo-liberal (aka Reaganomics, free-market fundamentalist) power, and compromised with it too much (e.g. repeal of Glass-Steagall). But they didn't go all the way. Wages were raised and many regulations were still in place. By the way, calling Democrats "neo-liberals" is as inaccurate as calling any Republican a "populist."...

Sorry, but the original neoliberals were the Clintonites responding to the excessive rightward drift of the Reaganites.  Credit Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers as the progenitors of this DINO economic policy.  Essentially, to maintain power they sided with the big banks and big business on economics, while advocating progressive policies in the social sphere.  For the poor, especially people of color, it was smile, shake their hands and steal their wallets.

[User3451]

Democrats aren't neoliberals?

Democrats invented neoliberalism!

[sbarrera]

(09-05-2020, 10:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 02:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely. The worst you can say about Democrats in that regard is that they were humbled by Republican neo-liberal (aka Reaganomics, free-market fundamentalist) power, and compromised with it too much (e.g. repeal of Glass-Steagall). But they didn't go all the way. Wages were raised and many regulations were still in place. By the way, calling Democrats "neo-liberals" is as inaccurate as calling any Republican a "populist."...

Sorry, but the original neoliberals were the Clintonites responding to the excessive rightward drift of the Reaganites.  Credit Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers as the progenitors of this DINO economic policy.  Essentially, to maintain power they sided with the big banks and big business on economics, while advocating progressive policies in the social sphere.  For the poor, especially people of color, it was smile, shake their hands and steal their wallets.

That was my understanding too. That's why I call Biden a neoliberal. Primary voters rejected the more progressive alternative represented by Sanders and Warren.

[sbarrera]

(09-04-2020, 02:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 08:38 AM)sbarrera Wrote: With the race to the White House coming down to a contest between the Mafia state run by the Trump organization, and the remnants of neoliberalism as embodied by O'Biden, I would say the Progressive dream has come to an end. The blue wave will at best be a bluish-purple wave if it successfully washes the GOP out of power. However, certain Progressive agenda items have successfully taken root and won't be going away even if the GOP maintains control of the government. Either way, the pandemic continues to have its effect on society and the economy, which will be more consolidation of the digital economy and a more precarious life for those outside of it.

Here is my list of winners and losers.

Winner: Big Business, Loser: Small Business
Winner: Capital, Loser: Labor
Winner: Digital workers, Loser: Essential workers
Winner: Gays, Loser: Transgenders
Winner: Marijuana users, Loser: Opioid users
Winner: AR-15 collectors, Loser: Gun control advocates
Winner: Whites, Loser: non-Whites
and because I can't resist...
Winner: Coronavirus, Loser: Humanity

The Crisis is not yet over. Winners and losers are yet to be determined. So far any American must recognize that the economic elites have completely humiliated everyone else, coming close to establishing a New Peonage, if not slavery. Landlords are kings, and renters are losers so far -- big. Gays won, it is still ambiguous about transgender people, but child-molesting perverts have definitely lost. We have yet to see how the gun issue resolves itself. Sporting weapons only, and if you need defense, then call on "R. Ottweiler" or "D. O. Berman", either of which is a very good reason for people to behave themselves.  

The typical Crisis has had the Grim Reaper as the winner and Humanity as the loser. At one stage of the last Crisis one could have had:

Winner: Nazis, Loser: Jews
Winner: Nazis. Loser: liberal democracy

but in the end, the surviving Jews at lest got Israel or at least easy immigration to America, and leading Nazis got Hell. (This may be heretical by any religious standard, but if there is a just God who stands in judgment of us, then He can choose which theological Truth that He represents. I can only imagine the sickening feeling that a Nazi felt when discovering that Almighty God is Jewish. I can only imagine what Osama bin Laden felt when discovering that God is an American, or that bombers or the 16th Street Baptist Church in "Bombingham, Alabama"found out at death that God is a black American Christian. And, yes, Slobodan Milosevich was likely shocked to discover that God is Allah and Muhammad is his chief Prophet. If one is just, then one has little to fear in the Manifestation of God's Choosing). Child molesters, beware: you are going to be f---ed in ways you never thought possible, and those ways will be unpleasant..  

Donald Trump has achieved something I never thought possible after the 1970's: mass dissent against him, complete with peaceful protests and outrageous  violence.  This is rare in American history, and this signals the end of an era in American history. A Crisis is the end of one era and the beginning of another, typically the second Skowronek cycle of political life in one Saeculum and the first in another.

pbrower you have a great point about the Crisis not being over and how bad it might looked for the Allies in '41-'42. Is that where we are now? It is possible. So you could call the winners v. losers scorecard current state only. More to come.

[Warren Dew]

(09-04-2020, 02:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely.

Wages and earned income have risen faster under Trump than under Obama exactly because the Democrats are more neoliberal than Trump is.



Biden has zero originality and would just return us to Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberalism, economically.

[Warren Dew]

(09-04-2020, 02:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think climate change requires more sacrifice than the pandemic has, by a long shot. Only the rich oil/fossil barons will have to sacrifice, unless they adapt and re-invest. Energy alternatives are there, and the skeptics about them are dead wrong. It's a question of who is elected; that is all. We will need more transit, but the car is still viable too if it is electric or hydrogen-powered using non-fossil energy to generate.

This part I agree with.  The economics of solar power are becoming more and more compelling.  The crisis will shake things up enough that the oil barons won't be able to continue their increasingly difficult rear guard action against solar, as they did during the Obama years by throwing huge tariffs on solar panels.  Eventually the free market will assert itself and solar panels will become standard roofing.

The only way that could change is by workers winning out over capital in a way that destroyed existing capital and resulted in high interest and discount rates.  I do think workers will win out over capital, but I don't see interest and discount rates rebounding to the extent necessary to save big oil.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2020, 01:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 02:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely.

Wages and earned income have risen faster under Trump than under Obama exactly because the Democrats are more neoliberal than Trump is.



Biden has zero originality and would just return us to Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberalism, economically.

I'm not so sure it is neoliberal, but it is Voodoo economics. The Republican scheme is to stimulate in good times and bad. That works for not quite seven years, then there is an economic downturn. The Democrats get voted in generally to fix the disastrous economy. As a result, Obama saw a disastrous economy during his early years. To a great extent it drove the unraveling see saw.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2020, 01:16 PM)sbarrera Wrote: pbrower you have a great point about the Crisis not being over and how bad it might looked for the Allies in '41-'42. Is that where we are now? It is possible. So you could call the winners v. losers scorecard current state only. More to come.

It is not quite the same.  In the Industrial Age the crisis was a crisis war.  It generally took four or so years for the US to mobilize, learn the weapons of the time, and push your way to the enemy capitol.  So, it took four years to solve the crisis heart.  This time around the problems are different.  It doesn’t take as long to get a vaccine.  It doesn’t take as long, if you can win the senate and White House, to change the laws ruling violent racist policing.  As a result, I have been seeing a shorter crisis.  Once the obvious problems have been solved, there will be attempts to make sure it doesn’t happen again then we go on to building fusion plants and stomping on the old values that got us into the whole mess.

Is it like 1941 and 1942?  In so far as no one was ready to confront the twin problems of COVID and racism, sure.  As 2020 rolled in, we did have the old values in charge.  It is obvious that they are not working just now.  In 1941 and 1942, the militaristic powers still had their head start.  We had not fully mobilized yet, though the regeneracy and selection of political leaders had already occurred by that point.  Finding the right generals was still a work in progress.  Not quite a perfect match, but close enough.

It could be that we could get another trigger to prolong the crisis heart, but triggers these days are fairly rare.

I think the values shift is well underway.  Incorporating science into policy and rejecting racism is a given.  We just have to wait on the election and inauguration for the values change to be given teeth.

The winners?  The greatest problems facing the culture are addressed.  Democracy, human rights, equality and justice are apt to be the winners.  Political fantasies that ignore the science and justify ignoring problems will be a losers.  Racism will be a looser.  But you have to be a little more patient.

[pbrower2a]

(09-05-2020, 05:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 01:16 PM)sbarrera Wrote: pbrower you have a great point about the Crisis not being over and how bad it might looked for the Allies in '41-'42. Is that where we are now? It is possible. So you could call the winners v. losers scorecard current state only. More to come.

It is not quite the same.  In the Industrial Age the crisis was a crisis war.  It generally took four or so years for the US to mobilize, learn the weapons of the time, and push your way to the enemy capitol.  So, it took four years to solve the crisis heart.  This time around the problems are different.  It doesn’t take as long to get a vaccine.  It doesn’t take as long, if you can win the senate and White House, to change the laws ruling violent racist policing.  As a result, I have been seeing a shorter crisis.  Once the obvious problems have been solved, there will be attempts to make sure it doesn’t happen again then we go on to building fusion plants and stomping on the old values that got us into the whole mess.

I see it much more possible now that American leadership of the time could decide to outlaw the fascistic ideologies of Ku Kluxism, neo-Nazism, and the Alt Right, if for no other reason than to protect children from exposure to ideologies that can do them no good. I can imagine legislation even to the extent of a Constitutional amendment that greatly reduces the right to bear arms. It is clear that we have no right to own tanks, hand grenades, Stinger missiles, Katyusha rockets, or submarines. (Submarines have been used for smuggling cocaine). If Germany can outlaw Nazi flags, organizations, and symbols, maybe we can ban KKK $#!+ as Germany does with Nazis without losing much freedom. 

You don't want your kids involved with drugs, child molesters, or neo-Nazis. There isn't much different between the Nazis and the Klan these days anyway.  

Quote:Is it like 1941 and 1942?  In so far as no one was ready to confront the twin problems of COVID and racism, sure.  As 2020 rolled in, we did have the old values in charge.  It is obvious that they are not working just now.  In 1941 and 1942, the militaristic powers still had their head start.  We had not fully mobilized yet, though the regeneracy and selection of political leaders had already occurred by that point.  Finding the right generals was still a work in progress.  Not quite a perfect match, but close enough.

American politics were about as placid as they could be in 1942; the analogy to our time is more like the late 1850's. No two Crisis Eras are quite alike in the sequence and emphasis of events, let alone enemies in the event of a war. COVID-19 kills like a war, so that may be the Crisis. By 1940 most Americans already saw the Devil's Reich and Thug Japan as likely enemies if America were to end up at war, and it was only a matter of time. We have an enemy, and instead of being a foreign leader it is a virus. Nobody can feel guilty about seeking the extermination of the virus.

We will need better leadership at the least on COVID-19 than what we have. With a halfway-competent President we would have more a more competent response than what we had. We would have had a standardized response that shut down all fifty states instead of mostly states with Democratic Governors or majorities in both State houses.   

Quote:It could be that we could get another trigger to prolong the crisis heart, but triggers these days are fairly rare.

COVID-19 is the war. Plagues are the wrong times in which to conduct military campaigns because plagues add new, pointless danger in a war. Invading in the aftermath of a plague that depopulates an area or decimates the defenders might be tempting for survivors. 

Quote:I think the values shift is well underway.  Incorporating science into policy and rejecting racism is a given.  We just have to wait on the election and inauguration for the values change to be given teeth.

Those in rearguard defense of discredited ideas will discover that when they have no reserves that they are doomed. 

Quote:The winners?  The greatest problems facing the culture are addressed.  Democracy, human rights, equality and justice are apt to be the winners.  Political fantasies that ignore the science and justify ignoring problems will be a losers.  Racism will be a looser.  But you have to be a little more patient.

The economic elites promised some super-prosperity that would supposedly solve all shortages so that inequality would be no harm. They sold us garbage -- heavy personal debt, limited opportunity, high rents, overpriced education necessary as a gamble in a scramble for jobs as glorified clerks, and the world's most expensive medical system. Figure that two of the sources of low-paying jobs (retail stores and low-end "casual dining" restaurants have been dying.

Mass poverty is misery and no key to creating some incredible prosperity from which all will benefit. That, to put it as crudely as I can put it, is how slavery worked. 

In any event, manufacturing prowess is so strong that our economic system can meet all human needs so easily that poverty is no longer a necessary or desirable means of controlling workers. We can work fewer hours to get what we need. The status symbols have become empty. Rituals of self-abasement on behalf of elites have become pointless. That is the end of any need for egregious inequality. 

Much will change in all economic assumptions. In the rest of life... we need to learn how to live and not how to toady to horrid bosses. We will need to accept reduced hours of work, but we will need to learn what to do with the time. We will need to appreciate anew what takes time to fully enjoy. Ephemeral delights pass and leave life empty. Ideally we would do what the elites don't want us to do -- reading, listening to extended works of music, and watching great cinema. 

I outgrew Top 40 music as a teenager... OK, that was when disco entered the pop scene.

[Eric the Green]

(09-05-2020, 04:06 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 01:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 02:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely.

Wages and earned income have risen faster under Trump than under Obama exactly because the Democrats are more neoliberal than Trump is.



Biden has zero originality and would just return us to Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberalism, economically.

I'm not so sure it is neoliberal, but it is Voodoo economics.  The Republican scheme is to stimulate in good times and bad.  That works for not  quite seven years, then there is an economic downturn.  The Democrats get voted in generally to fix the disastrous economy.  As a result, Obama saw a disastrous economy during his early years.  To a great extent it drove the unraveling see saw.

Neo-liberal = Voodoo economics = free market ideology = trickle down economics = Reaganomics = libertarian economics = supply side = self-reliance memes = welfare scapegoating = Republican Party.









Whatever economic benefit happened under Trump, is owed entirely to the Obama stimulus. The GDP and other economic data under Trump is inferior to the Obama second term. Trump is directly responsible for how bad the economy has been since March. It would have been bad anyway, probably, but it goes on and on because we have no national leadership on the virus.

[Eric the Green]

(09-05-2020, 01:12 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-05-2020, 10:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 02:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely. The worst you can say about Democrats in that regard is that they were humbled by Republican neo-liberal (aka Reaganomics, free-market fundamentalist) power, and compromised with it too much (e.g. repeal of Glass-Steagall). But they didn't go all the way. Wages were raised and many regulations were still in place. By the way, calling Democrats "neo-liberals" is as inaccurate as calling any Republican a "populist."...

Sorry, but the original neoliberals were the Clintonites responding to the excessive rightward drift of the Reaganites.  Credit Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers as the progenitors of this DINO economic policy.  Essentially, to maintain power they sided with the big banks and big business on economics, while advocating progressive policies in the social sphere.  For the poor, especially people of color, it was smile, shake their hands and steal their wallets.

That was my understanding too. That's why I call Biden a neoliberal. Primary voters rejected the more progressive alternative represented by Sanders and Warren.

Nope. The "excessive rightward drift of the Reaganites" WAS Neoliberalism. The response by the Clintonites was the New Democrats. I point out that Clinton kept some of the old Keynesian economics and added neoliberalism to it. Thus for example, he got passed an increase in the minimum wage which had been flat since Reagan took office. Biden is part of this tradition, but he may be moving away from it and toward the progressives, taking lots of advice from Warren and adopting platform planks from Sanders. Details of Biden's plans here:
https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/#

Neoliberalism is the creation of economists like Hayek, Mises and Friedman and the writer Ayn Rand and others like the ironically-named Janes Buchanan. The politicians that put it into effect were primarily Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. See Monbiot above, he is the best expert.





Please don't ignore my corrections of language. Correct terms are important. Thanks.

Clinton was not a neo-liberal, he was a New Democrat. Neo-liberal is uncompromising conservative economics. Its name comes from the original classical "liberal economics" which means the market freed from the government. The New Democrats just realized that the neo-liberals were too powerful to defeat, so compromise was needed. So although Bill Clinton campaigned aggressively and outspokenly against trickle-down economics, and acted to raise wages and provide the earned income credit and restore some regulations, he also got rid of welfare as we know it and took down Glass Steagall in concert with those who had the power in the government, the neo-liberals like Gingrich. 

Neoliberalism is the original Reagan policy. Clinton was compromise with it. I myself could not support it and moved to the Green Party. As an opponent of neoliberalism, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary (having reregistered Democrat this year). I will vote for Joe Biden, because Trump is a clear and present danger to everything, and Biden is at least half a loaf, and maybe more if the people push him just as Trump says we will. Although I am on the left, and according to questionnaires probably further left than anyone here, I am practical about what we can get in a USA that is so thoroughly deceived and decomposed as it is today.

"As neoliberal policies (cutting taxes for the rich, privatising state assets, deregulating labour, reducing social security) began to bite from the 1980s onwards, growth rates started to fall and unemployment to rise. The remarkable growth in the rich nations during the 50s, 60s and 70s was made possible by the destruction of the wealth and power of the elite, as a result of the 1930s depression and the second world war. Their embarrassment gave the other 99% an unprecedented chance to demand redistribution, state spending and social security, all of which stimulated demand. Neoliberalism was an attempt to turn back these reforms. Lavishly funded by millionaires, its advocates were amazingly successful – politically. Economically they flopped."
--- George Monbiot
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...ic-failure

Neoliberalism was instituted in the 1980s, NOT the 1990s. The New Democrats compromised with it and continued it but didn't start it.

Republican trickle-down economics is a failure wherever it is tried:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evidence-..._b_3644152

Bill Clinton, although a neo-liberal on trade, welfare reform and financial deregulation, also had a good keynesian-liberal record in other respects. That's why I don't call him and his successors like his wife "neo-liberals" per se. The Center for American Progress described this record this way: "a broad mix of tax relief, wage increases, access to health and child care, and protections for working families helped grow and strengthen the middle class"-- and provided details.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/...ton-years/

[Eric the Green]

What is Neo-liberalism?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2020, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I see it much more possible now that American leadership of the time could decide to outlaw the fascistic ideologies of Ku Kluxism, neo-Nazism, and the Alt Right, if for no other reason than to protect children from exposure to ideologies that can do them no good.

I am doubtful laws will be passed to outlaw ideologies.  That is untraditional.  There might be social pressure to eliminate them.  It would become unspeakable to present them in public.  But I don't really expect blatant censorship.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2020, 01:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 02:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First of all, though, Democrats are not neo-liberals. That is the Republican program, completely.

Wages and earned income have risen faster under Trump than under Obama exactly because the Democrats are more neoliberal than Trump is.



Biden has zero originality and would just return us to Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberalism, economically.

Looking again at the above chart, one could see someone with a different perspective drawing the dotted lines differently.  If you wanted to, one could draw the economy flat in Bush 43's years.  Draw a line from the bump at the beginning to the bump at the end, and things were pretty much the same.  If you start low and end high it makes it seem llke he grew the economy.  From another perspective, you could draw a line from the middle of the early bump to the state at the end of the 2008 crash that Bush 43 caused.  His policy would be properly judged as a disaster.

On the other hand, if you delay things a few years to bypass the result of your predecessor's policy, one could judge Obamas policy by drawing a line from the end of Bush 43's crash well into Trump's years.  Some of it towards the end is the Voodoo economics policy of stimulating in good times and bad, but the line from 2011 to late 2020 is pretty straight and rises dramatically.  The tail end is Trump and voodoo, sure, but we know a collapse is due after 7 years or so of voodoo.  Republicans presidents pay attention to looking good for their own two terms, and don't care about America or what happens later.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump has largely touted stock-market valuations as proof of his competence at economic stewardship. Because such valuations often have no connection to any reality other than a current multiple of income with a fudge factor of what speculators bid, share values can rise to preposterous heights in a speculative boom and then collapse. Wages and employment are typically lagging indicators in the economy.

We need remember that speculative booms are themselves disasters for devouring assets and inappropriate investments.