| Today's Guardian read..... 07:54 - Nov 28 with 860 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/28/the-message-to-democrats-is-cle
' 40 years of neoliberalism have left the US with unprecedented inequality, stagnation in the middle of the income spectrum (and worse for those below), and declining average life expectancy...'
'Americans haven’t forgotten that the Democrats let loose the financial sector (Clinton), then bailed out the banks while homeowners and workers who lost their jobs in the Great Recession carried the cost (Barack Obama). Moreover, it was Clinton who unleashed globalisation, tacitly believing in a trickle-down economics that would ultimately benefit everyone. The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this score is that Democrats claimed to feel the pain of those who were losing out.'
'For the Democrats, that message should be clear: abandon neoliberalism and return to your progressive roots in the presidencies of Franklin D Roosevelt and Lyndon B Johnson. The party needs to provide a new vision of a society that offers education and opportunity to all; where markets compete to produce better products that enhance living standards, rather than to devise better ways of exploiting workers, customers, and the environment...'
Yet here we are with Starmer’s Labour in deep with and at the bidding of the corporate establishment. Don't be surprised when a disillusioned electorate vote in Farage next.
You had your chance of a radical alternative and you blew it. |  |
| |  |
| Today's Guardian read..... on 08:07 - Nov 28 with 804 views | NthQldITFC |
Lemming-like species continues to exhibit lemming-like behaviour. Cliff edge looms. "What else can we do?" they all cry, "They told us this is how it works." |  |
| |
| Today's Guardian read..... on 09:17 - Nov 28 with 693 views | Guthrum |
Amid the Democrat self-flagellation, what should not be forgotten is the lurking figure of Reagan, who did more than anyone to set all this up.
As with so many of these articles, what he is advocating is little more than trying to out-promise the opposition on "nice things". Nice, but hard-to-deliver.
At least he provides concrete examples. But even these are flawed. Roosevelt spent greatly on infrastructure and public services. But he borrowed massively to do that. Nowadays, since the "household budget" approach to government debt took hold, that is very tricky. The markets and the media react strongly against it. Moreover, the situation was worse than today and more obviously so. There's a lot of inequality today, but relatively little actual starvation and many sectors of society are quite comfortably off. A "win" was more available by lifting large numbers of people out of real poverty with borrowed money than trying to prize wealth (also mostly borrowing) from the rich to hand out. Also, one does wonder how the New Deal would have played out had the War not come along to boost American industry and set the US up as a dominant force in the aftermath.
While Johnson may have faced great opposition in his civil rights reforms, he had the tools to force it through - federal imposition.
I'm not trying to suggest it is an impossible dream to forge a more equitable society. But that we must not fall into the trap of trying to out-promise on "nice things" without a viable plan to actually deliver them. That was the basis of neoliberalism, after all. Which inevitably led to disillusionment and chasing after purported revolutionaries like Trump.
It is necessary to hold all the cards: A concrete, viable plan, robust and financially structured; the ability to articulate this with absolute clarity and couched in attractive terms; highly charismatic leadership to do the presentation, clever enough to execute the plans or oversee and shield those with the skills to do so.
Otherwise it'll just be a collection of meaningless soundbites which, on the toss of a coin, may beat the opposition, but then turn to dust when required to bear any weight. Nothing will effectively change. |  |
| |
| Today's Guardian read..... on 11:25 - Nov 28 with 604 views | nodge_blue |
Trumps tax cuts for the rich is so self serving. He has a whole charade of being the working man's person but he is only interested in himself. But it's not like the US population haven't seen him before.
As for the democrats, Im really not 100% sure what they - or any (Neo) liberal party need. A strong, charismatic leader probably does more than any policy these days. That's the sad truth. Run social media campaigns that are engaging.
I thought LBJ was more known for packing kids off to Vietnam more than anything else.
The thing with the third paragraph, and it's a noble one, but if that's the vision, then what actually are the policies to make that happen. Do companies produce products to not enhance living standards? What does that even mean? Is my PS5 going to be replaced with an air purifier?
These are all just words that mean very little to the average American who seems to look at immigration, the cost of fuel, cost of food and the growth of woke culture.
I nearly deleted the above as Im not really sure what Im saying or what point im making. Other than I read so much in the Guardian that seems just not where most people are right now. Americans haven't forgotten that the democrats let loose the financial sector....um, pretty sure they have actually. And I doubt they care if they do. They are hardly going to vote Republican on that basis as if the Republicans are going to rein it in. There's so many holes in what he's written when you break it down. |  |
| |
| Today's Guardian read..... on 11:54 - Nov 28 with 557 views | WeWereZombies |
'bailed out the banks while homeowners and workers who lost their jobs in the Great Recession carried the cost (Barack Obama).'
This flies in the face of my understanding of the financial crisis that emerged in 2007, although the first I heard of it was a warning by an, at the point, not so well known Barrack Obama reported on the front page of the Financial Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac
'The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance...that led, in 2006, to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, who were unable to pay their mortgages...In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.'
This all happened under the George W Bush presidency, the contribution that Obama made was clearing up the mess afterwards. Sound familiar ? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
