Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52
Thanks Tree42Thanks

Thread: WH is Only Telling Half the Story About What Happened to American Jobs

  1. #1
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,988
    Thanks
    45552

    From
    So. Md.

    WH is Only Telling Half the Story About What Happened to American Jobs

    It's the failed trickle down economics that began being implemented in the Reagan era.

    White House Trade Council head Peter Navarro was explaining what he sees as the biggest problem with the American economy since the 1990s that exacerbated inequality and left the American worker in the lurch.

    "Well, I think you start with the idea that we've had 15 years of subpar growth — 2 percent or below," he said in an interview with NPR to promote "Made in America Week."


    "Prior to 2001, we grew at 3 and a half percent. The big difference has been the entry of China in particular into the World Trade Organization and our markets. And we've just been hammered. What that does as a proxy, basically, is it drains essentially the lifeblood out of our manufacturing economy, out of our communities, out of our tax bases."
    The problem didn't start in the 1990s, it started in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan — a hero of the Trump administration — was president, and neoliberal economics were first making their mark on policy. Reagan and his ilk distrusted government and believed that the private sector could make the best decisions when left on its own. You've heard about this — it's called laissez faire economics.

    This ideology ultimately led to the financialization of the US corporation — the process of putting shareholders first, often at the expense of workers and consumers — and its emergence as an actor that takes resources from the economy rather than creating them. This, combined with a government zeal for lowering taxes rather than spending, means no one — not the government, and not the private sector — is investing enough in America to keep the economy strong across social classes.


    In short: Government cuts and changes in how corporations operate mean American workers are getting screwed by their own government and their own employers.


    Navarro and I end up with the same dire view of the current economic landscape. We just disagree on how we got there.
    What happened to American jobs in the 80s - Business Insider
    Thanks from Blueneck, labrea, Davocrat and 3 others

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    30,363
    Thanks
    82

    From
    Tennessee
    why was this a failure under 8 years president Clinton and 8 years of president obama?

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14,218
    Thanks
    9409

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by mtm1963 View Post
    why was this a failure under 8 years president Clinton and 8 years of president obama?
    You missed 8 years between Clinton and Obama its called Bush. Under Obama the economy recovered after the worst economic cluster fuck in history under Bush. Obama took the economy into steady territory and then started upward. You guys think Trump is responsible for the growth since Nov 2016 but the fact is without Trump it would have been a lot better. Real serious investment is looking elsewhere in the west to put their money and countries like Canada are benefiting. Thanks Trump.
    Thanks from Dragonfly5, Redwood and MaryAnne

  4. #4
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,988
    Thanks
    45552

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by mtm1963 View Post
    why was this a failure under 8 years president Clinton and 8 years of president obama?
    Unfortunately, many Democrats have bought into the idea that the financialization of corporations is a good idea. Just as they've bought into the idea of less regulation of the financial industry. Clinton went along with the "modernization" of the industry. That's one reason I'm mystified when some suggest that the Democrats have become radical socialists or something. In reality, the Democrats have slid to the right of the Democratic party of the mid 20th century. The rest of the world views the current Democratic party as a conservative party. The biggest difference between the parties policy-wise is that at least Democrats recognize that it's really only the wealthy that have benefited from the economic policies of the past 40 years and they try to mitigate the adverse effects of those policies. Republicans behave as though there are no adverse effects and do everything in their power to undermine the social safety net.
    Thanks from Eve1, Blueneck, Æthelfrith and 5 others

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14,218
    Thanks
    9409

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Unfortunately, many Democrats have bought into the idea that the financialization of corporations is a good idea. Just as they've bought into the idea of less regulation of the financial industry. Clinton went along with the "modernization" of the industry. That's one reason I'm mystified when some suggest that the Democrats have become radical socialists or something. In reality, the Democrats have slid to the right of the Democratic party of the mid 20th century. The rest of the world views the current Democratic party as a conservative party. The biggest difference between the parties policy-wise is that at least Democrats recognize that it's really only the wealthy that have benefited from the economic policies of the past 40 years and they try to mitigate the adverse effects of those policies. Republicans behave as though there are no adverse effects and do everything in their power to undermine the social safety net.

    Well said.
    Thanks from Babba and Blues63

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,114
    Thanks
    3345

    From
    Ohio
    Samantha Bee addresses the cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes mantra of the GOP.....with conservative Bruce Bartlett, Arthur Laffer and Paul Krugman.
    Fun and educational.

    Thanks from Babba and TennesseeRain

  7. #7
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,264
    Thanks
    26440

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Unfortunately, many Democrats have bought into the idea that the financialization of corporations is a good idea. Just as they've bought into the idea of less regulation of the financial industry. Clinton went along with the "modernization" of the industry. That's one reason I'm mystified when some suggest that the Democrats have become radical socialists or something. In reality, the Democrats have slid to the right of the Democratic party of the mid 20th century. The rest of the world views the current Democratic party as a conservative party. The biggest difference between the parties policy-wise is that at least Democrats recognize that it's really only the wealthy that have benefited from the economic policies of the past 40 years and they try to mitigate the adverse effects of those policies. Republicans behave as though there are no adverse effects and do everything in their power to undermine the social safety net.
    American businesses do not belong to America. In a free market system...if Ford want to produce every one of their cars sold in America ...overseas...we should not place restrictions on them to do so.

    It is not the job of the federal government to make corporation act as we wish.

    I have no say what goes on in any boardroom of any corporation...where my clout lies in my purchasing power.

    There are 100 different arguments of why the American middle class got fucked over ...but the only reason is that we could not sustain the growth of a post WWII economy.

    It was a perfect storm we had industry humming because of the war effort...we had the tremendous influx of government dollars into the economy, we had dominance of share of global markets and we had a need.

    What Americans need to focus on is ending welfare for corporations and getting rid of laws that protect said corporation from competition here in the US.

    Why can't Tesla sell his cars directly to consumers? Why is there a law in which he must go thru a dealership?

    Why can't Joe Blow make cars for the American market?

    If McKing burgers wants to replace the workers with robots and Kiasoks...we should say fuck you McKing burger and go to Joe Blows burger shack...where they still employ humans.
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 30th July 2017 at 10:35 AM.
    Thanks from Dr.Knuckles

  8. #8
    Veteran Member cpicturetaker12's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    23,073
    Thanks
    16846

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by mtm1963 View Post
    why was this a failure under 8 years president Clinton and 8 years of president obama?
    2 words. BULL-SHIT. ANY (all) honest brokers of 30 years of economic data and the benefit of hindsight have ALL come to the same baseline conclusions.

    Let me put it non-economist language. Since I was a PSYCH major, I'll put in reductionist language and a model I understand.

    Would I rather have 10,000 people in my community making $5 an hour MORE to spend in our community or 1 guy making a $10,000 more a week in my community? Who is likely to spread it around? Who is likely to put ALL of it back into the community?
    Last edited by cpicturetaker12; 30th July 2017 at 10:40 AM.
    Thanks from Babba and labrea

  9. #9
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,988
    Thanks
    45552

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    American businesses do not belong to America. In a free market system...if Ford want to produce every one of their cars sold in America ...overseas...we should not place restrictions on them to do so.

    It is not the job of the federal government to make corporation act as we wish.

    I have no say what goes on in any boardroom of any corporation...where my clout lies in my purchasing power.

    There are 100 different arguments of why the American middle class got fucked over ...but the only reason is that we could not sustain the growth of a post WWII economy.

    It was a perfect storm we had industry humming because of the war effort...we had the tremendous influx of government dollars into the economy, we had dominance of share of global markets and we had a need.

    What Americans need to focus on is ending welfare for corporations and getting rid of laws that protect said corporation from competition here in the US.

    Why can't Tesla sell his cars directly to consumers? Why is there a law in which he must go thru a dealership?

    Why can't Joe Blow make cars for the American market?

    If McKing burgers wants to replace the workers with robots and Kiasoks...we should say fuck you McKing burger and go to Joe Blows burger shack...where they still employ humans.
    I didn't suggest that American businesses belong to America. The point is that our laws have incentivized corporations not to invest in themselves and their industry and they expect the government to invest in innovations because it's more profitable for them to buy back stock.

    When corporations borrow money, one would think that money would go into investment in the firm. But according to the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank, since the 1980s, companies have invested less than 10 cents of each borrowed dollar. They've put far more effort into buying back stock which, thanks to the way executive compensation works, makes the C-suite richer and richer.

    From 2003 to 2012, S&P 500 companies used 54% ($2.4 trillion) of their earnings for stock buybacks. That has also contributed substantially to the inequality we're seeing, as the main beneficiaries of buybacks are wealthy investors.

    Meanwhile, the private sector has called on the government to invest in innovation. Back in 2010 the American Energy Innovation Council — which includes executives from Microsoft, Bank of America, and other massive companies — called on the government to increase its investment in alternative energy from $5 billion to $16 billion annually.

    Of course, as Lazonick pointed out in his paper, seven of the companies on the council had spent $228 billion from 2000-2010 on stock buybacks.

    To put this another way: big business is asking the government to assume the risk involved in innovation, so they can take advantage of the benefits.
    Thanks from labrea

  10. #10
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    64,988
    Thanks
    45552

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    2 words. BULL-SHIT. ANY (all) honest brokers of 30 years of economic data and the benefit of hindsight have ALL come to the same baseline conclusions.

    Let me put it non-economist language. Since I was a PSYCH major, I'll put in reductionist language and a model I understand.

    Would I rather have 10,000 people in my community making $5 an hour MORE to spend in our community or 1 guy making a $10,000 more a week in my community? Who is likely to spread it around? Who is likely to put ALL of it back into the community?
    That's exactly the outcome of these policies. I've always said that money is to an economy what blood is to a body. Our problem right now with income inequality is that too much money is pooling in the hands of too few people. Add in the tax cuts the wealthy have enjoyed over the same time as all of the deregulation and "modernization" and that explains both the low economic growth and the debt and the deficit of the federal government.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 30th December 2016, 05:41 PM
  2. Half of millenials say the American Dream is dead
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 12th December 2015, 11:37 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 20th January 2015, 09:46 AM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 15th January 2015, 09:34 PM
  5. If the Bush Tax cuts create jobs what happened in 2008?
    By The Catalyst in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 12th November 2010, 08:04 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed