patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,190,095 comments by 13,851 users - mell, The_Deplorable online now
The establishment paying lip service to the problem
invite response
2016 Mar 8, 3:26pm 1,726 views 5 comments
Comments 1 - 5 of 5 Search these comments
Heraclitusstudent
2016 Mar 8, 3:29pm
But then of course, it's all the fault of the right:
"Research by Suzanne Mettler and Julianna Koch from Cornell University underscores how any plan to help Trump’s beleaguered supporters may end up entangled in ideological knots. They found that on closer inspection, many Americans who deny ever benefiting from a government social program actually received far more public support than they realized. And the most strenuous denials come from conservative Republicans.
Many citizens of red states and members of the struggling working class — supporters of Mr. Trump, not to mention Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida — often oppose programs to benefit “poor people.†Even if the “poor people†these programs would help is them."
Heraclitusstudent
2016 Mar 8, 3:32pm
That strategy, if it amounts to that, would visit a disaster of epic proportions upon the world economy. It harks back to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, which pushed the world into a tit-for-tat trade war in which everybody raised their barriers against everybody else’s imports, entrenching the Depression."
Right, because Keynes didn't tell us the solution to depressions.
These solutions that actually work so well when they are not of offset by trade.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Mar 8, 4:08pm
It harks back to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, which pushed the world into a tit-for-tat trade war in which everybody raised their barriers against everybody else’s imports, entrenching the Depression."
But NOT causing it. Unemployment was double digits and the country was in the throes of the Depression before it took effect. Also, the Tariff had been jacked up much higher in the beginning of the 20s and the Economy Boomed. And there's a great deal of argument about how much of an impact it was. About 5% of US GDP was exports in the late 20s, at the peak before the Depression. The Domestic Market was far and away the key factor, and even if exports had entirely disappeared, that wouldn't have caused the Great Depression.
Finally, Trade 1943-1990 was mostly between developed countries. Today, it is mostly from developing to developed, very one way, for the USA.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Mar 8, 4:12pm
Right, because Keynes didn't tell us the solution to depressions.
These solutions that actually work so well when they are not of offset by trade.
Exactly right. In the old days, a huge boost in infrastructure spending would have used US Steel with US Portland Cement using machinery from International Harvester and "Allentown Tool and Die", made in the USA. In turn, the newly employed would buy goods made mostly in the US, and thus creating a virtuous cycle.
Today, the infrastructure spending would go to Indian Steel with Diahatsu Trucks, and the newly employed would have no selection at Walmart beyond goods made in China.
In fact, the Hillary-Cruz-Rubio-Kaisch Neoliberal Guard even wants US Truckers replaced with Mexican ones if they can.
Old idea: High Wages, High Standard of Living
Neoliberal Guard: Low Wages, Borrow any difference, and if it's not enough fuck you.
Balanced Trade is fine. $400B/year deficits year after year are unsustainable.
Bellingham Bill
2016 Mar 8, 7:07pm
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm
But housing and real estate in general is the biggest black-hole in the economy, so many trillions being sucked out of it to parasitical rent-seekers.
Trump was involved in real estate development at some point, IIRC . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/business/economy/a-few-solutions-to-the-working-class-revolt.html?ref=economy
"The political system is in shock at the insurrection of the white working class, which has flocked to Mr. Trump’s candidacy.
On the wrong side of globalization and technological change, no longer at home in an increasingly multiethnic America, these voters have eagerly embraced his simple proposal to make things better: walls against the imports and the people they believe have robbed them of a shot at prosperity.
That strategy, if it amounts to that, would visit a disaster of epic proportions upon the world economy. It harks back to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, which pushed the world into a tit-for-tat trade war in which everybody raised their barriers against everybody else’s imports, entrenching the Depression."
"But the raw anxiety of his supporters remains unaddressed."
"The nation’s diversity would not go into reverse regardless of how high he built his wall along the nation’s southern border."
"Stumped by the economy’s inability to deliver more decent jobs, policy makers are struggling to come up with solutions.
"The routine promise that economic growth will automatically spread prosperity has proved empty, belied by the long slide in the real earnings of all but the best paid workers."
"Any long-term strategy to improve workers’ lot, of course, must include improving their skills. But just kicking the challenge down the road under the fuzzy prescription that all America needs is better education and training — a favorite of policy makers and their economic advisers — is no longer acceptable for workers who have suffered multiple rounds of dislocation over several decades."
"For all its strengths, the American job market has some troubling features. Unemployment might be lower than in many other industrialized nations, but the employment rate for prime age workers has been on a downward trend for 15 years. "
"about 13 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product was redistributed to the top 1 percent from the rest of the population. “It is not crazy to suggest,†he said, “that some percentage of that could be shared with a broader group.â€"
...
"Yet modest though they may be, they are still highly controversial. Indeed, the most critical question is whether politicians divided by an ideological gulf could agree on any effective labor market strategy."