Reaganomics: 32 Years of Failed Policy - Interview with Richard Wolff

[marmar]

RT "Abby Martin remarks on the 31st anniversary of the President Ronald Reagan's Economic Recovery Act, and speaks with to Richard Wolff, Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, and author of 'Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism', about why 'Reaganomics' is not a cure-all for the US economy's fiscal woes.

[KG]

1. AutoRichardWolffDURec

let's be real - expect no help from the dem party to remedy these econmoic trends

[kairos12]

4. Agreed

[malaise]

2. I like Wolff

Rec

[xchrom]

3. du rec.

[valerief]

5. How has Reaganomics failed for the 1%? It was designed for them and is a success. nt

[truth2power]

6. Rec. Thanks, marmar. I encourage everyone

to view Prof. Wolff's monthly Brecht Forum talks.

They're in the video section of his website, under "Global Capitalism - monthly update". This series was on hiatus during the summer, but is set to resume in Sept. His previous talks are still topical.

http://rdwolff.com

[hfojvt]

7. whoa, whoa, whoa there Nelly

"President Reagan signed the bill, after months of debate over how to deal with the country's deep economic recession."

WHAT deep economic recession?

Here's GDP growth and unemployment BEFORE the bill was signed.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/142

"Going back to GDP

1981.1 - (.8%)
1981.2 - 1.22%

At this point Congress passed the Reagan tax cuts, titled as the Economic RECOVERY and Tax Act. Given that it was the middle of the 3rd quarter and that the economy grew at an annual rate of almost 5% in the 2nd quarter one might ask "Recovery from what?""

And the debate was NOT about how to deal with any recession, which did NOT yet exist. Reagan was elected on a PLATFORM and thus was said to have a MANDATE, given his huge electoral college victory and the NEW Republican control of the Senate - to pass his ginormous piece of crap that he eventually signed. The people had spoken, just like they had with California's proposition 13. They wanted their MTV and their tax cuts.

The DEEP recession pretty much began AFTER ERTA was signed.

[hfojvt]

8. the errors just keep coming

&quot Reaganomics) was an economic theory saying that the country's economic well being depended on the top earners paying as little taxes as possible."

Uhm, NO.

Reaganomics, like the Bush tax cuts, like the Clinton tax cuts, like the Obama/Bush tax cuts, was MARKETED as a tax cut for EVERYBODY. They were "across the board tax cuts"

Pay attention, and tell the truth. Tax cuts for the rich are ALWAYS marketed that way.

Obama, to his discredit, does the same damned thing himself.

As I never tire of pointing out. The accursed payroll tax cuts that Obama always called "middle class tax cuts" and that EVEN the recent issue of Mother Jones had Kevin Drum arguing in FAVOR of that abomination. They heavily favor the rich.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

"Here's an analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.p ...

12.1% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the bottom 40%
26.7% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the top 10%

27.1% goes to those in the bottom 60%
46.4% goes to those in the top 20%


The top 10% get twice as much of the tax cut as the bottom 40%."

Oh, but thanks to OWS and Obama, we all now feel that MOST of the top 10% is part of the "middle". They are, after all, part of the 99%.

And just for OWS, I will add that the top 1% got 3% of the accursed payroll tax cut and the bottom 20% only got 3.8%. They heavily favored the rich - especially compared to the "making work pay credit" that they replaced which gave 12.8% to the bottom 20% and ZERO to the top 1% (but we cannot have that, can we?, it's not like Obama was elected campaigning on that in 2008)

[Rain Mcloud]

9. I agree with Valerief.

They got what they wanted,all the money and property and deregulation.
I would not be surprised to see Mission Accomplished banners streaming along Wall Street,K Street and at the Koch Brothers Headquarters.

The trouble that they made for themselves though is,they are out numbered about 7 billion to one.
Great math skills there,Geniuses!

[FiveGoodMen]

12. "they are out numbered about 7 billion to one"

But they have the armed forces and the militarized police working for them.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. when people are already dying from starvation and lack of health care you end up with

a group of people with nothing to lose and willing to fight and die for their rights.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. Not pretty, though

And no guarantee that the good guys will win.

[William769]

31. Welcome to DU.

I should point out to you though, advocating violence is not taken well here.

Again welcome.

[liberal_at_heart]

14. they used to be smart enough to realize you have to leave something for the masses.

Now they want it all and eventually the poor and the middle class will send them the message that they can't have it all.

[Wounded Bear]

19. Not really....

The 1% have never given up anything to the 99% without a fight, kicking and screaming to hold onto 'what's mine.' The few times they have seemed to concede something to the 'lower classes' they were coerced into it.

[Rain Mcloud]

21. When they have it all then their money becomes worthless instead of more valuable.

Just one possible scenario:

Where the spit hits the fan and the whole system collapses,is the Petro-Dollar.
What happens if the OPEC Nations stop accepting the US Dollar as trade currency?
The US Dollar devalues even further making other currencies which rely on its stability devalue as well.

The effects are Global and disastrous until the only currency that each country will accept as legal tender will be their own,temporarily.
Transportation will grind to a halt,no more fuel means no goods,no more electricity.
Data systems collapse.

Food will spoil in refrigerators and crops and rot on the ground.
The banks will collapse and the stock exchanges,deprived of their lifeblood income,shut their doors.
Money and credit are now just a sadistic concept and ownership is what can be defended.

You can survive quite a while without food but only a couple of days without water,less without medicine for some.
Sanitation will go and then diseases will start to take their toll on the very young and old.
If no burial system is in place then the dead will begin to poison the rest of the populace.

In three days time,the world as we know it would cease to exist and anarchy the only rule.
Seven billion panicked people desperate for food,water and clean shelter to store what meager provisions they have hoarded.
Take a guess who they will turn on.

Guns need bullets,all the powered equipment that the military relies upon need gasoline or diesel and the troops need food and water and sanitation and medicine.
How long will this last before the population over runs their defenses and start using the captured weapons as currency and/or political power?
How long till a Soldier realizes that he could make himself wealthy and provide for his family?
The winner is the new Government.
Global warfare would surely not be too far behind as local Warlords consolidate their power and go looking for more resources.

It is a Creationist's dream come true,the Dark Ages on a 21st century scale.
All it takes is removing one link from a chain and everything else grinds to a halt.

[hfojvt]

10. this time I think Wolff leaves something out

One of the main problems with Reaganomics was not JUST ERTA, but all the OTHER rounds of tax cuts for the rich that also followed it - coming, disgustingly enough even from Clinton. (as noted in my journal and described in the link there http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2665533)

and then also from Bush

and now, in several rounds, sadly enough, also from Obama.

And every 4 years the Republican candidate for President since 1984 has campaigned on the platform of - MORE tax cuts for the RICH (although they never admit, any more than Obama does that the RICH are the primary beneficiaries of their stupid tax policies).

Maybe Wolff is getting to that, but I feel like he ALREADY should have mentioned that.

[JayhawkSD]

11. I was 38 when this "trickle down" thing came into play.

It was "enrich the rich and they will enrich those below them." I said at the time to those who supported the theory, "What happens if the rich just keep the money?" All I got in response was a bunch of blank looks, as in "What in the fuck are you talking about?"

And, of course, the rich just kept the money. I'm not as dumb as I look.

[bemildred]

23. +1. nt

[kentuck]

13. And there are so many Americans that still believe Reaganomics is the economic standard...

by which we attain a fair and equitable economy.

[Octafish]

16. Hasn't failed for the 1-percent of 1-percent.

7/8 of ALL WEALTH in Human History has been created since 1981.

Pruneface's budget guru David Stockman must've added up all the GDP and estimated the stuff from the middle ages. Whatever. His real point is that most of THAT has ended up in the pockets of the greedhead plutocrats' pockets.



In 1985, the top five percent of the households – the wealthiest five percent – had net worth of $8 trillion – which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five per cent have net worth of $40 trillion. The top five per cent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980.” -- David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009217n&tag=related;photovideo

"In 1985, the top five percent of the households, wealthiest five percent, had net worth of $8 trillion, which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five percent have net worth of $40 trillion," he explained. "The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980." -- David Stockman

SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/28/60minutes/main6999906_page4.shtml

And to think there are kids in America who would go to bed hungry every night, if they had one.

PS: Anyone wonder WHO all the privatized NSA spying really keeps safe?

[hfojvt]

20. Stockman talks about the top 5%

why do you want to pretend it is all about the 0.01%?

When it comes to income, even the top 0.1% only gets about 10% of the pie.

The top 0.9% gets another 12% or so.

The bottom 50% only get about 12%.

The top 0.01% are not the only ones squeezing us, not the only ones stepping on us to grab as big a share of the pie as they can get.

The top 24% gets 46.1% - a much, much bigger slice of the pie than the mere 10% that goes to the top 0.1% - to say nothing of the 0.01%

[Octafish]

22. Sorry. You like trickle down?

Most of the money has accrued at the top. It wasn't my fucking idea.

[hfojvt]

24. you know who generally likes trickle down?

The top 9%. They laugh all the way to the bank while everybody blames the top 1%.

[Octafish]

25. Must be so. But the ones who make the most are the richest of the rich.

Last edited Sun Aug 18, 2013, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Nothing against them, per se, it's just the richer they are, the more they make from trickle down, from both fiscal policy and monetary policy. Here's a good resource:

Who Rules America?

EXCERPT...

This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)

SNIP...



CONTINUED w LINKS:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

For some reason, everybody likes to hold the door open for these high net-worth individuals. Personally, I'd like to see them all - 10-percent to 1/10 of 1/10 of one percent taxed at Eisenhower era levels.

[Rex]

27. Yeah fuck blaming the owners when they have uber rich scapegoats.

Real funny message there.

[hfojvt]

28. I have no idea what you are talking about

But here is a rhetorical question.

Who got most of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts?

The top 0.01%?
The top 0.1%?
The top 1%?
or
the top 19% (by which I mean the top 20% sans the top 1%)?

It is rhetorical, because I will answer it for you.

the top 1% got 26,1%
the top 19% got 39.3%

If the answer to "who rules America" is "the top 0.01%" then why didn't those rulers get more of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts?

Then there's the Obama tax cuts.

The top 1% got 18%
the top 4% got 17%
the top 19% got 47%

Like I said, they seem to be laughing all the way to the bank.

[hfojvt]

17. so Wolff says

at one point "He (Reagan) basically gave to the richest 10% ..."

And then Abby later says "We're talking about the 1%"

Except, again, as ALWAYS, the 1% is not the ONLY group who sees great gains from these policies. That other 9% got piles of money as well, and compared to the rest of us, are not doing that bad.

That is why I thought it was so funny when Abby says "I am still waiting for it to trickle down to US"

Uh huh. Does Abby really only make $30,000 a year (like I do) for working for Russia Today? Or does she make closer to $300,000 a year?

Chances are pretty good that both she and the Professor are part of the top 10%, certainly part of the top 20%.

Which is why they perhaps like to talk about the top 1%. So they can hide the fact that they are better off, sometimes MUCH better off than 80% of the rest of us.

[factsarenotfair]

29. OH, maybe Occupy's mistake was not talking about the 10% instead of the 1%.

There are people doing extremely well where I live and I know they aren't in the top 1%. They wouldn't care if there people were dropping dead from starvation right on the streets.