I could not stomach to read Arthur Brooks article. But I did read the comments and enjoyed them immensely. Thanks NYT for having moderated comments they are very enlightening.
37
No matter how one tries to explain the Trump phenomenon, the only thing for certain that it's not only 'Those Who Don't Understand Trump Are Doomed To Repeat Him' -- but the rest of us as well.
18
The rise of Trump and other populists throughout the centuries is common. The Greeks were the first to record their deep concern and fear of "tyranny of the masses" (a.k.a. 'populism' . The Founding Fathers of the USA recognised and embraced this ancient concept. In the US Constitution, the electoral college was established as an independent body that would closely examine the popular vote for President and by using educated and rational judgement vote along the popular lines OR against them. This was the check against "tyranny of the masses". In 1880, the populists of USA overturned the electoral college. The trajectory of the USA's election process since has been contrary to the greater good beginning with unimpeded gerrymandering and now the radicalisation of party politics.
16
Like her or hate her, Mrs. Clinton represents some, but not all, of the people who would tend to vote Democrat. That is why Mr. Sanders was able to run such a vigorous campaign.
Sadly Mr. Trump, on the other hand, not only represents ALL of the core values of the Republican Party (bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, racism and xenophobia) but Trump is, by far, the BEST candidates Republicans could find.
Sadly Mr. Trump, on the other hand, not only represents ALL of the core values of the Republican Party (bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, racism and xenophobia) but Trump is, by far, the BEST candidates Republicans could find.
35
Economic meltdown for the past 8 years? Really?
53
The Republican Party is irreparably damaged. There will be no comeback in my lifetime. Of this I am certain.
17
"Those who do not understand Donald Trump are doomed." We'll know how many people that is when the ballots cast for Trump are counted.
7
I think Mr Brooks has forgotten his history.
"Indeed, political populism has often followed economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years."
The past 8 years under Obama have repaired the economy destroyed by the PREVIOUS 8 years (2000-2008) under Bush & the conservatives like Mr Brooks.
"Indeed, political populism has often followed economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years."
The past 8 years under Obama have repaired the economy destroyed by the PREVIOUS 8 years (2000-2008) under Bush & the conservatives like Mr Brooks.
70
Your title spears the source of dysfunction inherent in our condition, and more currently, this pathetic spectacle we're calling a "campaign."
But actually, you didn't even need the words; the picture tells the whole story, as they always do.
You're right, Mr. Brooks. The remarkable ignorance of know-nothing posturing has been whittling away at America's foundation for decades. Unfortunately, the most hollow point of society has now been "reached", and the fragments falling away from that foundation are now colossal chunks.
Thank you for your courageous movement somewhat more to the center. This is where balance and reasoned thinking live.
But actually, you didn't even need the words; the picture tells the whole story, as they always do.
You're right, Mr. Brooks. The remarkable ignorance of know-nothing posturing has been whittling away at America's foundation for decades. Unfortunately, the most hollow point of society has now been "reached", and the fragments falling away from that foundation are now colossal chunks.
Thank you for your courageous movement somewhat more to the center. This is where balance and reasoned thinking live.
6
Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute, yet he looks on the "economy" as an old style-radio that can be re-tuned by twiddling a couple of knobs, and if that doesn't work, get a new battery.
Bloomberg tells us (Jun 8, 2016) us that "Wednesday's report on the monthly Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) has intensified concerns among some economists that the U.S. economy is running out of people who want jobs and are qualified to fill existing openings." (www.bloomberg.com/.../has-america-run-out-of-workers...)
A large part of the issue is the labor force and changes in it. In the US, that has been diminishing for decades, not just in training but in actual numbers, naturally lagging behind the slowing rate of population growth. There are a reported 5.8 million jobs unfilled. Bring back our jobs? War on coal? War on reality and truth, in fact.
Bloomberg tells us (Jun 8, 2016) us that "Wednesday's report on the monthly Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) has intensified concerns among some economists that the U.S. economy is running out of people who want jobs and are qualified to fill existing openings." (www.bloomberg.com/.../has-america-run-out-of-workers...)
A large part of the issue is the labor force and changes in it. In the US, that has been diminishing for decades, not just in training but in actual numbers, naturally lagging behind the slowing rate of population growth. There are a reported 5.8 million jobs unfilled. Bring back our jobs? War on coal? War on reality and truth, in fact.
17
Very interesting piece. May I suggest that you write another column explaining what makes the outlook expressed in this piece conservative , as opposed to moderate/progressive? The notion that public policy should be positvely concerned with income distribution doesn't seem conservative to me at all. What am I missing?
19
"economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years"
If only you could be so lucky, Mr. Brooks. President Obama's legacy will show years from now how he - without any help from the Republican party - averted a meltdown...what you didn't see is his biggest success, that we did NOT have a meltdown.
And if you persist in calling it such, please remember it was your wealthy party members who caused the problems in the first place, through greed and an utter lack of sense of community and country.
If only you could be so lucky, Mr. Brooks. President Obama's legacy will show years from now how he - without any help from the Republican party - averted a meltdown...what you didn't see is his biggest success, that we did NOT have a meltdown.
And if you persist in calling it such, please remember it was your wealthy party members who caused the problems in the first place, through greed and an utter lack of sense of community and country.
49
Either that or we could just let the burgeoning revolution run its course in order to cleanse the toxic system.
Your ideology has destroyed this country, undermined democracy, and thoroughly discredited capitalism in the process. And it took you a while to catch up, but now even you know it, and your fear is palpable.
It's going to be a heavy lift to restore all three without resorting to violence, but I'm afraid that's exactly where we're headed.
Your ideology has destroyed this country, undermined democracy, and thoroughly discredited capitalism in the process. And it took you a while to catch up, but now even you know it, and your fear is palpable.
It's going to be a heavy lift to restore all three without resorting to violence, but I'm afraid that's exactly where we're headed.
12
America suffered the largest economic meltdown since the Great Depression during the 8 years of George Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" of unfunded health care mandates, tax cuts for the rich, and an unnecessary costly war ALL policies of which we are STILL suffering from.
Obama cut the deficit in half, slowed the rate of increase in national debt, decreased the number of Boots on the Ground in the middle east while giving basic health care to millions more Americans.
Trump and the GOP offer NO health care plan, more trickle down voodoo tax cuts for the rich, and increased military spending.
America always does better under Democrats.
Obama cut the deficit in half, slowed the rate of increase in national debt, decreased the number of Boots on the Ground in the middle east while giving basic health care to millions more Americans.
Trump and the GOP offer NO health care plan, more trickle down voodoo tax cuts for the rich, and increased military spending.
America always does better under Democrats.
60
Mr. Brooks, you wrote: "Into this gap walk populists who specialize in identifying culprits: rich elites who are ripping you off; immigrants who want your job; free trade that’s killing our nation’s competitiveness."
This is not quite accurate. The Tea Party 'populists' rail ceaselessly about the immigrants, much less about free trade and not at all about the rich elites. This is because they are not really populists. The are almost wholly sponsored, paid for and rabble-roused by the Koch brothers and their ilk... the very same people who finance such wholly owned subsidiaries as the American Enterprise Institute.
You give lip service to attacking corporate cronyism and special treatment to the wealthy.
Dwight David Eisenhower was fine with a marginal tax rate of 91%. Hillary Clinton proposes 60%. What does your organization propose?
Dan Kravitz
This is not quite accurate. The Tea Party 'populists' rail ceaselessly about the immigrants, much less about free trade and not at all about the rich elites. This is because they are not really populists. The are almost wholly sponsored, paid for and rabble-roused by the Koch brothers and their ilk... the very same people who finance such wholly owned subsidiaries as the American Enterprise Institute.
You give lip service to attacking corporate cronyism and special treatment to the wealthy.
Dwight David Eisenhower was fine with a marginal tax rate of 91%. Hillary Clinton proposes 60%. What does your organization propose?
Dan Kravitz
45
So Trump could not be foreseen despite the deeply racist and classist policies of the republicans for the past 50 years! Demagogues are the result of financial meltdowns? You mean like the one caused by the last republican administration? They take about 8 years to recover from? Kind of like now and how Obama has delivered us from the gutter Bush2 left us in? Just sayin...
37
Mr. Brooks is offerring a "new and improved trickle-down economy" for those who fail to understand recent history of the past 30-years. Note to self - We tried that twice now and it didn't work!
26
Economic meltdown over the last eight years? You're kidding. It occurred in 2008 after your George Bush and his lightly regulated financial system allowed the world economy to tank. The past eight years were when President Obama struggled to repair this damage, with no help whatsoever from the Republican side. Thank you.
45
I thought Mr. Brooks was a democrat by the end of the article. Maybe this is what thoughtful moderate republicanism might look like someday. I can imagine a competent bipartisan congress capable of balancing party political interests and the needs of the country. If only . . .
I also really appreciate the comment below. Mr. Obama didn't do a bad job. He saved us from a total economic breakdown created by years and years of poor leadership. And he did it while congress did everything possible to block anything he did because they cared more about the fate of their party than the fate of all of the people.
I also really appreciate the comment below. Mr. Obama didn't do a bad job. He saved us from a total economic breakdown created by years and years of poor leadership. And he did it while congress did everything possible to block anything he did because they cared more about the fate of their party than the fate of all of the people.
29
Same old. Same old. Trump will disappear and republicans will put their bigotry back in the closet? And can you ever get past the school choice nonsense? How about making all public schools a great choice.
24
If Mr. Brooks believes that the takeover of the GOP by Mr. Trump was shocking and unforeseeable, one wonders if he is still surprised by gravity.
32
Once again, the tired mantra of supply-siders is trotted out as panacea to ills social and economic, when it is indeed the cause. "GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH" they chant, even if that growth only fuels economic injustice, further pollutes the planet, exploits child labor, undermines integrity of family and threatens the savings and retirement dreams of the elderly. If growth means hoarding riches, depleting the earth's resources for profit, creating global price-fixing monopolies and waging global war to keep militarists in power, Mr. Brooks would advocate for it.
If your trade and economic policies are only benefiting a small section of your population and your economy, like ours, relies on consumer spending, it is counter-productive to allow gross income inequities like we see today. Mr. Brooks is still shilling for the .001% who employ him by equating the smokescreen of 'populism' with income redistribution. To the 99% the populism he decries is a means of economic survival and attempt to balance the scales of justice.
If your trade and economic policies are only benefiting a small section of your population and your economy, like ours, relies on consumer spending, it is counter-productive to allow gross income inequities like we see today. Mr. Brooks is still shilling for the .001% who employ him by equating the smokescreen of 'populism' with income redistribution. To the 99% the populism he decries is a means of economic survival and attempt to balance the scales of justice.
73
Tax cuts, deregulation, and school vouchers? Nice to see the AEI thinking outside the box for a change!
10
My private theory is that Trump has risen among a specific cohort, ie, those with a minimum commute of 70 minutes per day.
You listen to the same canned rock for a few months, you dodge NPR - too serious - and you end up in Talk Radio.
Listen to that stuff long enough and you are mainlining anti-Clinton propaganda, anti-immigrant propaganda, and anti-American propaganda.
Mark my words. Those spitting-mad Trump robots at the rallies commute or are in their cars driving for a minimum 70 minutes daily.
You listen to the same canned rock for a few months, you dodge NPR - too serious - and you end up in Talk Radio.
Listen to that stuff long enough and you are mainlining anti-Clinton propaganda, anti-immigrant propaganda, and anti-American propaganda.
Mark my words. Those spitting-mad Trump robots at the rallies commute or are in their cars driving for a minimum 70 minutes daily.
10
As a journalist I would ask Mr. Brooks this question: Two things you say in this column seem to be in contradiction to each other - please clarify. They are:
"Into this gap walk populists who specialize in identifying culprits: rich elites who are ripping you off....."
and
"It means ..... attacking the corporate cronyism that gives special treatment to wealthy and entrenched interests."
"Into this gap walk populists who specialize in identifying culprits: rich elites who are ripping you off....."
and
"It means ..... attacking the corporate cronyism that gives special treatment to wealthy and entrenched interests."
6
"Little or no." Not "little or any." Try harder.
3
For all this redistribution to happen Republicans will have to actually look at EVIDENCE and deal with taxes. As another commenter once said in these pages, tax cuts have become the Republican holy communion. Until you all grow up, disavow and deal with Grover N, I don't see anything happening.
17
The man who gave meaning to the English language was Samuel Johnson and he was a conservative. It was his contemporary Edmund Burke an 18th century Whig parliamentarian and liberal who used language to distort and obfuscate. In the 19th century the Oxford professor of logic Charles Dodgson writing under his pen name Lewis Carroll who gave us Humpty Dumpty whose words meant only what Humpty chose them to mean. In the 20th century Johnson' intellectual heir Eric Arthur Blair writing under the pen name George Orwell set the stage for what we now call American Conservatism when he wrote 1984.
Mr Brooks I understand English and I understand the forces that created Donald Trump. It was the fascism incorrectly labelled conservatism.
Samuel Johnson was a conservative. In the 20th century George Orwell and Bernie Sanders were conservatives but conservative became the social philosophy of democratic socialists as fascism became the calling card of those calling themselves conservative.
Mr Brooks, it is you and your fellow Franco Fascists who created Humpty Trumpty you created a language that means exactly what you want it to mean "neither more--nor less." Mr Trumpty has neither the understanding nor the intellectual curiosity to determine on which side of the looking glass he exists he is the ultimate achievement of the AEI. Congratulations to you and your sponsors from Koch Industries.
You are of course correct those who don't understand Trump are doomed to repeat him.
Mr Brooks I understand English and I understand the forces that created Donald Trump. It was the fascism incorrectly labelled conservatism.
Samuel Johnson was a conservative. In the 20th century George Orwell and Bernie Sanders were conservatives but conservative became the social philosophy of democratic socialists as fascism became the calling card of those calling themselves conservative.
Mr Brooks, it is you and your fellow Franco Fascists who created Humpty Trumpty you created a language that means exactly what you want it to mean "neither more--nor less." Mr Trumpty has neither the understanding nor the intellectual curiosity to determine on which side of the looking glass he exists he is the ultimate achievement of the AEI. Congratulations to you and your sponsors from Koch Industries.
You are of course correct those who don't understand Trump are doomed to repeat him.
14
On 15 October 2008, the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 8,577.91, after a one-day 733.08 point fall.
On 7 October 2016 it closed at 18,240.49, an increase by a factor of 2.12.
Arthur C. Brooks considers this "past eight years" to be an "economic meltdown".
Brooks is in fact-free free-fall.
On 7 October 2016 it closed at 18,240.49, an increase by a factor of 2.12.
Arthur C. Brooks considers this "past eight years" to be an "economic meltdown".
Brooks is in fact-free free-fall.
21
Thank you very much for this. I have been your worst critic till this moment. Yes, equal opportunity is what need to be fashioned.
1
"has often followed economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years.". Excuse me but you the President of the....the........American Bullshitters Institute?
25
In Research what you study is what you see, what you do not look at you will not find. Our Problem is the GNP. A number that Newspapers and Politicians live by. The GNP is an average. As the old joke goes if Bill Gates walks into a room of 99 average wage earners, the average income (GNP) in the room goes up into the tens of Millions.
GNP needs to reported as Quintiles or Quartiles. This is often is done in some research studies. The GNP should be reported, for example into 4 or 5 equal parts. Report the income, jobs, growth, inflation, etc for those in the lowest earning portion of the population to the highest. With modern computers you can slice or dice it any way you want. Just pick the way you want to do it and report it every quarter the one way agreed upon. That should give a better idea to everyone how the country is doing
The GNP as now done is out of date, so last century
GNP needs to reported as Quintiles or Quartiles. This is often is done in some research studies. The GNP should be reported, for example into 4 or 5 equal parts. Report the income, jobs, growth, inflation, etc for those in the lowest earning portion of the population to the highest. With modern computers you can slice or dice it any way you want. Just pick the way you want to do it and report it every quarter the one way agreed upon. That should give a better idea to everyone how the country is doing
The GNP as now done is out of date, so last century
3
Never going to happen. The republicans are simply incapable of putting aside their greed and their elitism and bigotry.
If you want something close to this proposal vote Democrat.
If you want something close to this proposal vote Democrat.
10
Trump has no political philosophy and most of his supporters vote against their own economic interests.
14
I stopped reading after " economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years." Only a fool or a partisan ideologue would write such drivel. The last eight years have been ones of gradual but continued recovery from the destruction your party created in the prior 4.
We know what you are Mr. Brooks. Just like many of your conservative brethren, you can't stand to give credit for anything to the first black president. You create your own fantasyland in the hope that history will look back on him poorly. But mostly you create these lies so that in your mental gymnastic thought process you will convince yourself that you aren't a racist.
We know what you are Mr. Brooks. Just like many of your conservative brethren, you can't stand to give credit for anything to the first black president. You create your own fantasyland in the hope that history will look back on him poorly. But mostly you create these lies so that in your mental gymnastic thought process you will convince yourself that you aren't a racist.
22
Don't call it populism.
3
Hey is this guy a Democrat or what!
2
The economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, whose 2010 book, “This Time Is Different,”
I stopped reading this article at this point.
R&R have been thoroughly debunked. It turns out that these two are ideological hacks. Arthur, you know this do you not?
Please google the following:
krugman r&r nyt
Find hits such as following:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/reinhart-and-rogoff-are-not-...
I stopped reading this article at this point.
R&R have been thoroughly debunked. It turns out that these two are ideological hacks. Arthur, you know this do you not?
Please google the following:
krugman r&r nyt
Find hits such as following:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/reinhart-and-rogoff-are-not-...
11
"Oh look! A squirrel!"
8
Conservatives cannot and will not talk about "widely distributed growth." That would make them sound like, oh, Democrats?
9
Equating "rich elites who are ripping you off" with "immigrants who want your job" as both scapegoats is quite a stretch: studies show immigrants are not raising unemployment rates, but are suffering discrimination, while the rich are profiting off the rest of us--as Mr. Brooks seems to admit--yet suffer no real damage.
15
Mr. Brooks wants today conservatives to act more like Democrats. They don't know how and refuse to learn. They only know what they're paid to know. Their votes have to be cleared by the NRA, the Kochs, Adelsons, and think tanks like the author's.
There's really not much difference between the Republican establishment and the potty-mouthed Freak who is their candidate.
There's really not much difference between the Republican establishment and the potty-mouthed Freak who is their candidate.
12
Dear Mr. Brooks,
And just WHAT did all your palaver have to do with Mr. Trump?
Your discussing "economics" while he's discussing fondling women.
Next column, please try to be a tad more, well, relevant?
And just WHAT did all your palaver have to do with Mr. Trump?
Your discussing "economics" while he's discussing fondling women.
Next column, please try to be a tad more, well, relevant?
10
What an outrageously mendacious article. Privatize the public schools, deregulate industry, and more tax breaks for corporations. That's what it ALWAYS comes down to for these people. Pathetic. And there's no acknowledgement that it was just these sample economic policies that created the financial crisis in the first place. More lipstick on the trickle-down pig.
42
I was with you, sort of, right up to the "authentic compassion" part. We're all basically greedy animals. If there were higher angels at all, political parties wouldn't be necessary. All it takes is one utopian statement to bring down an entire argument.
1
The rise of populism after a financial crisis happened numerous time in history. However, Mr. Brooks must ask why the manifestation in the Democratic party is a decent man, Mr. Sanders while the symbol of Republican populism is Mr. Trump who has all the attributes of dangerous demagogues in history. Populism is not necessary dangerous and can be corrective like Mr. Sanders and Occupy Wall Street. However, populism can be easily corrupted like the Tea Party and Mr. Trump when many people started to look inward and manufacture their own facts to fit their ego.
81
'Strong growth, evenly distributed' seems to be exactly what right wingers (GOP members and supporters) do NOT want. They, like Trump, want tax cuts for themselves and benefit cuts for everyone else. That is, they want strong growth that is definitely not evenly distributed.
It is a pleasure to hear even one right winger, Arthur Brooks, support the 'evenly distributed' part. But this is the only time I have heard one of them speak this way. Let's see if any of Brooks' colleagues or political siblings act as though they agree.
In the meantime, Hillary is the lesser evil.
To see what we REALLY should do watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec). Thanks. [email protected]
It is a pleasure to hear even one right winger, Arthur Brooks, support the 'evenly distributed' part. But this is the only time I have heard one of them speak this way. Let's see if any of Brooks' colleagues or political siblings act as though they agree.
In the meantime, Hillary is the lesser evil.
To see what we REALLY should do watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec). Thanks. [email protected]
1
Well Mr. President of the American Enterprise Institute, would you care to add anything to your column after the tawdry, completely disgusting audio and videotape of your party’s leader that was aired today?
Even after Paul Ryan cancelled his “Fall Festival” with Trump for Saturday, he STILL continues to back him as our commander-in-chief! All of your holier than thou top Republican leaders who are ALWAYS saying how our country is in moral decay BECAUSE of the Democratic Party, all who point to same sex marriage, allowing transgender folks the right to use the public restroom that they feel safest in, all of you like Mike Pence who want to take away a woman’s reproductive choices--NOW TELL US HOW DONALD J TRUMP WILL make America Great Again!
Your party leaders are the biggest weasels to populate our country. YOUR VP Candidate Mike Pence spent the entire debate on Tuesday night defending every one of Trump’s lies.
And today after hearing Trump’s gutter, garbage talk about women, Pence turned tail and ran from reporters.
Conservative Reformers? You had better look to the Democratic Party and to people who ACTUALLY cherish each other, love our fellow man (and woman) and believe in equality for all to turn our country around.
For now you are the party of pure unadulterated garbage.
For your party has given up ANY right to a moral high ground. Core position of conservative reformers my eye!
Even after Paul Ryan cancelled his “Fall Festival” with Trump for Saturday, he STILL continues to back him as our commander-in-chief! All of your holier than thou top Republican leaders who are ALWAYS saying how our country is in moral decay BECAUSE of the Democratic Party, all who point to same sex marriage, allowing transgender folks the right to use the public restroom that they feel safest in, all of you like Mike Pence who want to take away a woman’s reproductive choices--NOW TELL US HOW DONALD J TRUMP WILL make America Great Again!
Your party leaders are the biggest weasels to populate our country. YOUR VP Candidate Mike Pence spent the entire debate on Tuesday night defending every one of Trump’s lies.
And today after hearing Trump’s gutter, garbage talk about women, Pence turned tail and ran from reporters.
Conservative Reformers? You had better look to the Democratic Party and to people who ACTUALLY cherish each other, love our fellow man (and woman) and believe in equality for all to turn our country around.
For now you are the party of pure unadulterated garbage.
For your party has given up ANY right to a moral high ground. Core position of conservative reformers my eye!
5
Great ideas! When will the rational adults assume command of the country? Not happening in 2016.
OoohhaaaaooooihhhaAaaaahahahahahaha, oh Brooks, you slay me! That ending with the conservative principles, school choice even!, hysterical! So much funnier than the "Conversation w Gail Brooks".
(He was being satirical, right?)
(He was being satirical, right?)
3
Mr. Brooks,like most Republicans, ignores the endemic racism and intolerance that permeates a significant segment of the Republican Party. He riffs about populism and ignores,or is in denial about, the raw bigotry that dwells in the formerly "Grand Old Party". Black voter suppression, resistance to LGBT rights, defunding PPH, and rampant misogyny, are the essence of the Republican brand and a disgrace to the American political system. The fact that the words Black, Latino, or LGBT, do not appear once in Mr. Brooks column is symptomatic of the oblivious denial and core insensitivity of the Republican Party.
2
So, eight years after an ignorant Republican president led us into two (2) recessions and two (2) wars, the "people" demand ANOTHER Republican president who is even less knowledgeable and even more belligerent? Yeah, makes sense to me. Who doesn't miss the glory years of the Bush Rampage?
8
I have to say that I found Mr. Brooks' piece to be refreshingly centrist. And reading thoughtful discourse on serious policy issues was a relief from this reality show presidential election.
1
So what's the genuine difference between the 2 candidates, not in style which is immense, but in substance which is rather more interesting certainly as of yesterday ... https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/excerpts-of-hillary-clintons-paid-sp...
3
It would be interesting to know what a REAL expert in economics, sociology, and politics thought about this matter.
5
Ah ... the American Enterprise Institute.
Arthur Brooks has been bantering with Gail Collins for a long time now, playing the comic, light-hearted Republican, while defending what is, at core, a selfish and sexist and racist political party.
It's like riding a hog. A big Iowa hog. I long ago knew a West Branch farmer whose knee had been broken by a hog. We rented his old house. News: A pig wallow really stinks when the wind shifts.
Any person who pretends to be playful, yet quietly defends and fails to denounce Donald Trump, is saddled to that hog. He, or she, is spattered with mud and pig ----
Congrats.
You want to help American citizens who've suffered from the technological and international revolutions that have shrunk our coal and steel industries? Ok. Raise taxes on the 1% (see, um, Trump) and help women to find good daycare and good schools for their children.
Oh yeah, and ask Donald Trump to contract with US companies for steel and aluminum when building his next tower. (He generally buys from China.)
And unsaddle your hog. He's really dirty. You bought him.
Arthur Brooks has been bantering with Gail Collins for a long time now, playing the comic, light-hearted Republican, while defending what is, at core, a selfish and sexist and racist political party.
It's like riding a hog. A big Iowa hog. I long ago knew a West Branch farmer whose knee had been broken by a hog. We rented his old house. News: A pig wallow really stinks when the wind shifts.
Any person who pretends to be playful, yet quietly defends and fails to denounce Donald Trump, is saddled to that hog. He, or she, is spattered with mud and pig ----
Congrats.
You want to help American citizens who've suffered from the technological and international revolutions that have shrunk our coal and steel industries? Ok. Raise taxes on the 1% (see, um, Trump) and help women to find good daycare and good schools for their children.
Oh yeah, and ask Donald Trump to contract with US companies for steel and aluminum when building his next tower. (He generally buys from China.)
And unsaddle your hog. He's really dirty. You bought him.
3
Hi, I'm Arthur Brooks. I'm here to explain to you how the capitalist economy is your friend. We capitalists are in no way responsible for the emergence of fascist maniacs like Trump. Let us help fix the problem we helped create. If you don't understand the importance of listening to us, you're probably a dumb idiot anyway. Keep buying television sets. The only options are neoliberal capitalism and Trumpism. Let us save you from Trump, it's the only way. Don't look to the left for options. They're just like Trump, cuz he's a right-wing demagogue, and they're demagogues on the left. Submit to us, fully and completely. Trump is wacky and crazy but is in no way a natural product of the capitalist social order that fully created him. Here, have some Cheetos.
6
The R's should sit up and take note here - their trickle down won't do the job. Come up with some policies that actually help reduce the widening gaps in society. The R's have deluded themselves into thinking trickle down is the answer to all ills real and imagined.
4
"It means rewriting tax and regulatory law to stop discouraging domestic investment and squelching job creation."
from BBC News, one hour ago: "Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said he could cut as many as 70% of federal US regulations if he is elected. Mr Trump, who was speaking at an event in New Hampshire, blamed regulations for stifling business but said rules on safety and the environment could stay.
Earlier, one of his advisers said 10% of regulations could be eliminated."
Brooks is just saying what Trump is saying, but in a nicer way.
So much for "Those Who Don’t Understand Trump Are Doomed to Repeat Him." What if you're already doing that?
from BBC News, one hour ago: "Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said he could cut as many as 70% of federal US regulations if he is elected. Mr Trump, who was speaking at an event in New Hampshire, blamed regulations for stifling business but said rules on safety and the environment could stay.
Earlier, one of his advisers said 10% of regulations could be eliminated."
Brooks is just saying what Trump is saying, but in a nicer way.
So much for "Those Who Don’t Understand Trump Are Doomed to Repeat Him." What if you're already doing that?
8
I doubt that an AEI spokesperson is the best person to use Sweden as a partial explanation for the rise of Trumpist populism in America as in the paragraph that begins: "Consider moderate, tolerant Sweden, where a 1991...rewarded a brand-new "New Democracy" party..." so I will provide an observation by columnist Richard Swartz in today's Dagens Nyheter. I paraphrase:
Globalisation has shrunk the world and (here in Sweden) people confront this reality not only in economic terms but much more directly in purely physical terms. This confrontation is strongest in the Swedish suburbs (not to be confused with suburbs as understood in US) and countryside. There Swedes rather suddenly are face-to-face with people quite different from themselves. There the SD party found it easy to take root, a populist anti immigrant party. Had Swedes in central well-off Stockholm been as directly face-to-face with the asylum seekers, SD would be a majority party.
Brooks traces the rise of SD to the 1991 crisis - we were here then - but as Schwartz writes in the here and now it is the face-to-face confrontation with the "other".
Nowhere did I see anything like this in New England and Albany when I was there in May-June. Not a hijab in sight. I missed hearing Arabic, Somali, Kurdish! But Trump talks as if new immigrants had taken over America. And he is listened to.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Globalisation has shrunk the world and (here in Sweden) people confront this reality not only in economic terms but much more directly in purely physical terms. This confrontation is strongest in the Swedish suburbs (not to be confused with suburbs as understood in US) and countryside. There Swedes rather suddenly are face-to-face with people quite different from themselves. There the SD party found it easy to take root, a populist anti immigrant party. Had Swedes in central well-off Stockholm been as directly face-to-face with the asylum seekers, SD would be a majority party.
Brooks traces the rise of SD to the 1991 crisis - we were here then - but as Schwartz writes in the here and now it is the face-to-face confrontation with the "other".
Nowhere did I see anything like this in New England and Albany when I was there in May-June. Not a hijab in sight. I missed hearing Arabic, Somali, Kurdish! But Trump talks as if new immigrants had taken over America. And he is listened to.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
4
Who knew? Fairness has benefits.
1
#TrumpMustResignNow
2
In other words, "Spread the wealth around."
6
~~
Trump is just the beginning not the end of a long path of folly. Trump will be sent to the dustbin of history as a loser, but his supporters we'll stay with us, be at our inane holiday tables......
The GOP has to incorporate his basic tenets or become irrelevant or become Dems, which one do you think is going to happen?
The GOP will find a slicker candidate to run with Trump's zeitgeist.
Trump is just the beginning not the end of a long path of folly. Trump will be sent to the dustbin of history as a loser, but his supporters we'll stay with us, be at our inane holiday tables......
The GOP has to incorporate his basic tenets or become irrelevant or become Dems, which one do you think is going to happen?
The GOP will find a slicker candidate to run with Trump's zeitgeist.
5
" unchallenged by either side"
Another "false equivalence" column!
Another "false equivalence" column!
11
You said the rise of Trump in the republican party was unforeseeable. I disagree....while it may be true as it relates to Trump, there is no solace imaging Cruz or Christie or Walker or Rubio or Perry or Carson, ect as the republican nominee ......except the sideshow would have been more tempered. Something is fundamentally wrong with a party that would choose a presidential nominee form that group.
11
I went to a fine university, and now I go to a trade school. A BA in a humanities will do that to you:) Many of the guys- and I do mean *guys* are Trumpers. But hold that tar and feathers for a moment-
Many of them work full time, then come to night school for their career advancement. This is 40 hours or more of physical labor, then sitting in a few hours of class and 3 hours of shop between 2-4 days a week- plus some homework. These guys are not just laying on the couch yelling at Fox News about how right they are. They are not the abstractions that we educated liberals like to imagine can be effortlessly 'retrained,' and so will wipe all the pitfalls of globalization away.
This is what life looks like for the hard-working blue collar guy, (and to be fair- 4% women) in my program- many with (often working) wives and families that they rarely see. That said, many of them would fit in quite snugly to the 'basket of deplorables." Doesn't matter what it is... if it's bad, "Obama did it." Not all say this, but many more than at uni, that's for sure.
But here's a novel idea: How about, instead of repeating the same old liberal bromides about 'more money for retraining" displaced workers for "the jobs of tomorrow," *actually* make a commitment to PAY people a small stipend while they are retraining? So they can work part time, go to school part time, see their families a few more hours, still pay the bills, and not have nearly as much cause to be resentful?
Many of them work full time, then come to night school for their career advancement. This is 40 hours or more of physical labor, then sitting in a few hours of class and 3 hours of shop between 2-4 days a week- plus some homework. These guys are not just laying on the couch yelling at Fox News about how right they are. They are not the abstractions that we educated liberals like to imagine can be effortlessly 'retrained,' and so will wipe all the pitfalls of globalization away.
This is what life looks like for the hard-working blue collar guy, (and to be fair- 4% women) in my program- many with (often working) wives and families that they rarely see. That said, many of them would fit in quite snugly to the 'basket of deplorables." Doesn't matter what it is... if it's bad, "Obama did it." Not all say this, but many more than at uni, that's for sure.
But here's a novel idea: How about, instead of repeating the same old liberal bromides about 'more money for retraining" displaced workers for "the jobs of tomorrow," *actually* make a commitment to PAY people a small stipend while they are retraining? So they can work part time, go to school part time, see their families a few more hours, still pay the bills, and not have nearly as much cause to be resentful?
85
I'm transgender, now transitioning. I read the comments to a recent WQall St Journal article about the recent surge in this surgery as a result of newly available insurance. That adds pennies to any policy, literally; de minimum expense.
The WSJ is by subscription, well written, and arguably read by well informed intelligent people - mainly on the rightwing spectrum. Almost to a one, the comments were crude, invasive, ignorant, and proudly discriminatory. Mr Trump says out loud the hateful thoughts so many in my country actually think. He is not an anomaly: he is mainstream. We are a deeply and proudly bigoted country.
The WSJ is by subscription, well written, and arguably read by well informed intelligent people - mainly on the rightwing spectrum. Almost to a one, the comments were crude, invasive, ignorant, and proudly discriminatory. Mr Trump says out loud the hateful thoughts so many in my country actually think. He is not an anomaly: he is mainstream. We are a deeply and proudly bigoted country.
7
There's a simple measure to achieve "authentic compassion for people on the periphery of society" and improve actual growth for those left behind by this recovery - raise wages!!
9
Oh, goody! More advice from the American Enterprise Institute, champion of tax-cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation so that the top brackets don't have to worry about pesky little things like pollution, workplace safety, negotiating for decent wages or actually paying taxes. Don't worry, they say, the wealthy will reinvest their gains in newer and better stuff. Just get the government off the backs of the job creators and we'll have a paradise of full employment, great wages and top education. Well, we've been sawing that log for 40 years and it hasn't happened yet. In fact, anyone who knows anything about human nature knows you can't just leave most humans to do the right thing. Leave the room during a history test and the students cheat. Find a stretch of road with no cops and people speed. Give people an opportunity to enrich themselves with no one looking and they'll steal you blind. In a way, Trump is the perfect Republican candidate. Born rich and politically well connected, he used his wealth and his juice to manipulate the system and make boatloads more money while stiffing contractors and bankrupting four difference companies he started with other people's money and pocketing the proceeds. What a con!
11
So how exactly do we get reform into the corporate boardrooms, and get them to stop over-paying their C.E-whatevers? Into the rooms where the checks are cut for the excess corporate farming subsidies? How do we reform the ridiculously numerous and poorly managed local school district systems that keep getting more in taxes,etc, that favor only certain districts,while others (usually minority ones) tank? Or fail to innovate, fail to offer trades as curriculum?
HOW? How do we do these things?
You think-tankers are kings at playing Captain Obvious, but inept at offering actionable plans. How do we get the already bloated Golden parachutists to pull the needle on their money-drip and distribute it down the line to employees? How do we get the fossilized GOP party to accept the realities of science (say in regards to climate change, and the costly effects) and stop pandering to anti-science, corporate interests? HOW? How do we get the GOP to cease their childish ideological wars, and get down to doing their jobs? How?
How do we stop this pandering to ONLY white-male interests, thru fear-mongering that only they are losing in this wacky economic world we live in? How?
How do we get things fixed? We pretty much know what needs fixing - predatory banking, excess CEO pay, over-policing of minorities to help fill for-profit prisons, under-policing of white collar crimes, unequal pay for women, excess taxes on low incomes, etc,etc...
HOW do we actually go about fixing it all?
HOW? How do we do these things?
You think-tankers are kings at playing Captain Obvious, but inept at offering actionable plans. How do we get the already bloated Golden parachutists to pull the needle on their money-drip and distribute it down the line to employees? How do we get the fossilized GOP party to accept the realities of science (say in regards to climate change, and the costly effects) and stop pandering to anti-science, corporate interests? HOW? How do we get the GOP to cease their childish ideological wars, and get down to doing their jobs? How?
How do we stop this pandering to ONLY white-male interests, thru fear-mongering that only they are losing in this wacky economic world we live in? How?
How do we get things fixed? We pretty much know what needs fixing - predatory banking, excess CEO pay, over-policing of minorities to help fill for-profit prisons, under-policing of white collar crimes, unequal pay for women, excess taxes on low incomes, etc,etc...
HOW do we actually go about fixing it all?
2
School choice is the answer to all our educational problems? Is that in place of "government" schools? Seems to me that that is another Republican assumption that should be challenged.
9
"It demands authentic compassion for people on the periphery of society."
You can probably get that from a lot of Republicans, but from the Republican party? Not gonna happen.
You can probably get that from a lot of Republicans, but from the Republican party? Not gonna happen.
7
I was 16 and a political junkie in 1964 when the embodiment of American conservatism Barry Goldwater was nominated by the GOP. Goldwater 's nomination acceptance speech is famous for the lines.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater did not write those words they were written by Goldwater's speech writer Karl Hess. Karl Hess is one of the moral compasses of today's GOP and his words are often echoed by Paul Ryan, Rand Paul Paul and Donald Trump.
Hess was an extremist, he was an anarchist, and he was a social hedonist.
Karl Hess was a pro gun, anti government, anti tax libertarian.
No amount of Newspeak distortion can hide the fact that Donald Trump is a GOP fabrication and without the perversion of language Ronald Reagan would never have been elected.
Samuel Johnson and Benjamin Disraeli told me what it means to be a conservative. American conservative is simply another flavour of the month political philosophy. It is just another top down governmental philosophy meant to protect the few at the expense of the many. It is the corporate response to government of the people, by the people and for the people.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater did not write those words they were written by Goldwater's speech writer Karl Hess. Karl Hess is one of the moral compasses of today's GOP and his words are often echoed by Paul Ryan, Rand Paul Paul and Donald Trump.
Hess was an extremist, he was an anarchist, and he was a social hedonist.
Karl Hess was a pro gun, anti government, anti tax libertarian.
No amount of Newspeak distortion can hide the fact that Donald Trump is a GOP fabrication and without the perversion of language Ronald Reagan would never have been elected.
Samuel Johnson and Benjamin Disraeli told me what it means to be a conservative. American conservative is simply another flavour of the month political philosophy. It is just another top down governmental philosophy meant to protect the few at the expense of the many. It is the corporate response to government of the people, by the people and for the people.
10
Let us read carefully about this statement of Mr. Brooks: "political populism has often followed economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years." It sounds as if the economic meltdown of 2007-2008 was caused by the Obama administration.
3
Seems worth noting that while there is much understandable outcry on the Times editorial page about the boor Trump, there is nothing yet about the corporate candidate who hid the speeches that expose her as the center right candidate many of us knew her to be. We had a liberal to vote for in Sanders; now, faced with the atrocity that is Trump, Democrats are a cheering section for a corporate stooge.
"Only strong growth, evenly distributed, will do the trick." Oh, and also, getting rid of all the Republican leaders who have fought against the "evenly distributed" part since Ronald Reagan was president.
9
Ross Douthat recently (10/5/16) demonstrated remarkable candor:
"Given all this, could a Trump-style celebrity takeover someday befall the Democrats as well. . . ? Right now it couldn’t, because the Democratic Party isn’t a dysfunctional entity in which ratings-obsessed entertainers wield outsize influence over a base that feels consistently betrayed."
Mr. Brooks, similar candor would be most welcome from you.
The implication of much that you write: The GOP IS "a dysfunctional entity . . . [with] a base that feels consistently betrayed"!!!
Which of the following images is most fitting, Arthur?
The GOP is a rickety scarecrow that is unraveling at its loosely stitched seams.
The GOP is a Frankensteinian Monster--a Monster now evidencing embarrassing spasticity as it responds to its recently implanted Trumpish brain. It slouches and shambles menacingly onward, yet is ever on the verge of ripping its crude sutures asunder and collapsing into a heap of ill-matched members and organs.
Personally, I find the second image more apt.
Just what will a brain dis-implant-re-implant-with-a-new-brain surgical procedure set the GOP back? Just how much will this cutting edge surgery cost the current Republican Party?
Will the GOP's medical insurance premiums go way through the roof? And will we tax-payer voters ultimately get stuck with bill?
And just who will the new brain-donor be? Digging up one more cadaver clearly won't turn the trick.
"Given all this, could a Trump-style celebrity takeover someday befall the Democrats as well. . . ? Right now it couldn’t, because the Democratic Party isn’t a dysfunctional entity in which ratings-obsessed entertainers wield outsize influence over a base that feels consistently betrayed."
Mr. Brooks, similar candor would be most welcome from you.
The implication of much that you write: The GOP IS "a dysfunctional entity . . . [with] a base that feels consistently betrayed"!!!
Which of the following images is most fitting, Arthur?
The GOP is a rickety scarecrow that is unraveling at its loosely stitched seams.
The GOP is a Frankensteinian Monster--a Monster now evidencing embarrassing spasticity as it responds to its recently implanted Trumpish brain. It slouches and shambles menacingly onward, yet is ever on the verge of ripping its crude sutures asunder and collapsing into a heap of ill-matched members and organs.
Personally, I find the second image more apt.
Just what will a brain dis-implant-re-implant-with-a-new-brain surgical procedure set the GOP back? Just how much will this cutting edge surgery cost the current Republican Party?
Will the GOP's medical insurance premiums go way through the roof? And will we tax-payer voters ultimately get stuck with bill?
And just who will the new brain-donor be? Digging up one more cadaver clearly won't turn the trick.
1
Let them get trained is the modern version of let them eat cake. Even a cursory look reveals the hollowness of perpetual retraining, where the "little people" strive to be needed, and the capitalists still take an undue share.
If capitalism is gong to survive, it will need to change. The little people are tired. It can't be on them this time!
If capitalism is gong to survive, it will need to change. The little people are tired. It can't be on them this time!
1
How about Election Finance Reform Mr. Brooks? In politics, follow the money. The Koch Brothers one percent in this country have funded the Tea Party, The Roger Ailes one percent that have systematically damned the positive role of the Federal Government and actively supported the likes of Donald Trump. Fox and trash-talk-radio have been the mouthpiece for Grand Old Party politics that relied on white working class votes with absolutely no intention of actually delivering white working class jobs. But how do you sell that bait and switch? You've got to blame immigrants, minorities, welfare cheats, anyone but the one percent that have profited so handsomely from the scam. Wake up America. There is a class war going on in America. And the One Percent have been winning.
4
A broad swath of the American electorate has no use for facts and never has. They never move beyond adolescence in their thinking, and I say that with all due respect to adolescents. It's okay to think like an adolescent when you are one. But by the time you round the bend and head into your early twenties, more is expected of you. But don't take my word for it, Donald.
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things" (1 Corinthians 13).
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things" (1 Corinthians 13).
3
I don't understand people who call themselves conservative while conserving nothing at all.
6
Do Americans even know that many of the 11M Mr. Trump wants to deport pay Social Security taxes that so many of us collect but they never will?
5
Focus your laser on the political party that is owned, directed and led by the bi-coastal elite. They of the Wall Street-Hollywood pedophilia nexus, the job-killing globalists and the one-world secularists. These are the enemies of the decent, the hard-working and the pious. Not too many more quadrennial exercises reman before the reckoning.
A conservative "think" tank favoring policies for the lower and middle classes is unheard of. These "think" tanks are funded by corporate American via our phony tax laws that spew policies that favor the corporations and the rich including Donald Trump.
3
I didn't know that blaming wealthy elites who crashed the economy from Wall Street by buying government and turning into a virtual money vacuum for themselves constituted a populist deflection.
6
Precisely! My only complaint is that this column came a year too late. These are all questions that needed to be raised during the Republican primaries - when sane, prepared candidates like Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio were easily pushed aside by Dobald Trump.
.
Establishment economists and politicians needed to come forward and say "look, we get it: a lot of people are still suffering. Here are things that can be done to help." With the exception of Bernie Sanders, nobody did. The door was left wide open for Donald Trump and we didn't try to close it until he was halfway through.
.
Establishment economists and politicians needed to come forward and say "look, we get it: a lot of people are still suffering. Here are things that can be done to help." With the exception of Bernie Sanders, nobody did. The door was left wide open for Donald Trump and we didn't try to close it until he was halfway through.
24
Those who do understand Trump are also doomed by those who turn a blind eye to what a potential disaster a president Clinton would be. Either way we are doomed if we worry too much about the chips falling where they may. My advice just prepare to be doomed as if the hurricane is coming your way no matter who is elected.
1
The problem is not uneven growth distribution, the problem is hugely uneven income distribution, in which the top one percent have made out like bandits (an apt expression) and here are the charts:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america...
2
As usual Mr Brooks sees all the problems but, blinded by his slavish devotion to conservative ideology, misses out on any actual solutions. All he offers is the same old Republican't tropes—tax reform, school choice, blah, blah, blah—but thinks we only need to offer a bit of "authentic compassion"—whatever that means—to those who have missed out on their fair share of the economic pie.
Mr. Brooks, another theory is that the mean white people are not disenfranchised but rather, just mean and ill tempered. They have no goodness core and are selfish, insecure and have great difficulty with reading/writing. Entertainment is Fox news and buying ammunition. After adjusting to indoor plumbing their life was complete and body mass grew exponentially. Life is a constant supply of cheap food and methane gas.
2
Doomed? Oh, no. They groomed for this. Years and years of dogwhistling every racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, low-information voter, denigrating science, knowledge, facts, and education along the way and gleefully not just enabling but perpetuating lies, smears, and insults as the discourse of the day...
The Rs built this. Donald is their perfect candidate.
The Rs built this. Donald is their perfect candidate.
3
Might have been easier to read if I wasn't laughing so hard, then flipping to crying from the pain of reading such nonsense. First, let's get the what to read book out of the way first. The This Time It's Different tome is about 800 pages long, full of charts and graphs and the narrative is dry and pedantic. Plus, the authors sold out, letting the debt scolds use their material as propaganda. Better material would be: Manias, Panics and Crashes, The Many Panics of 1937, The Unwinding, and All The Devils Are Here. Second, one of the things I noticed about the aftermath of the crisis was that the wealthy had us right where they wanted us, at each others throats. This was not by chance. This was well engineered by the collusion of the wealthy and the MSM. And lastly, the use of "free market economics" always leads to the same outcome, a brutalized , broke populous and an enriched wealthy class, richer than when it all started. Gents like Brooks just don't get it.
3
It would be wonderful if Mr. Brooks' comments actually committed the American Enterprise Institute to "strong growth, evenly distributed."
But it would also be incredible, since the corporate boardrooms represented by the AEI are one of the main contributors to the uneven distribution that exists in the United States at this time.
But it would also be incredible, since the corporate boardrooms represented by the AEI are one of the main contributors to the uneven distribution that exists in the United States at this time.
2
Thanks, that strikes me as excellent analysis of how these things happen. Quite what to do about it is less clear. If we can elect Hillary Clinton now and continue to make economic progress, we can save our country; and perhaps in the future we can figure out how to keep this nasty phenomenon from ever happening again?
3
".... economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years." This author must have a bad case of amnesia, totally forgetting that the economy was totally in the ditch BEFORE Obama took office in January 2009, with unemployment headed for more than 10%, the housing and the stock market crashing. Now the stock market has more than doubled, the housing market has made a robust recovery, and the unemployment rate it a little more than 5%. That is not to say that things are all the rosy. However, it is astounding that we have had the recover we have had in view of the absolute obstructionist mode Republican legislators have been in since early 2009 with open and often statements that they were going to do everything they could to "make Obama fail." Thus, since Republicans gained control of Congress,any legislative proposals (other than tax cuts) that Democrats wanted to enact to create jobs, etc. have been filibustered or otherwise prevented from being enacted. Amazingly, these obstructionist actions seem to have worked pretty well for the Republicans because very little about this is now mentioned by the press. For example, any time a Republican politician makes allegations of failures by Obama in the economic area you would think an immediate comeback would be something like: "Don't you think that Republican obstructionism has anything to do with the allegations you are making?" I don't see any comebacks like that from the press.
6
This is the usual response from Conservatives. Keep changing the rationalization to whatever sells while continuing to push for 'lower taxes, deregulation, school choice, innovation (whatever that is), etc.' They always claim their agenda will lead to growth (a rising tide lifts all boats) but the gains (like the capital gains) always go you know where. New shade of lipstick for the pig.
3
This analysis of a demagogue's ascendancy does not address how the public overlooks his social and moral transgressions. It also minimizes the fact that this particular demagogue has not offered viable plans on anything - just gross and inconsistent generalities.
What makes this particular demagogue so scary and extreme is his previous visibility on television. The public feels that they know and understand him, and are entertained him. This prevents them from really listening to what he is saying. If they did, they would realize that his brand of populism would do nothing for the populace but everything for people like him.
What makes this particular demagogue so scary and extreme is his previous visibility on television. The public feels that they know and understand him, and are entertained him. This prevents them from really listening to what he is saying. If they did, they would realize that his brand of populism would do nothing for the populace but everything for people like him.
I think we can all agree that the American Enterprise Institute, Norm Ornstein excepted, needs to be kept about 500 miles away from actual policymaking unless we're looking to shred the safety net and destroy public schools.
5
"It demands authentic compassion for people on the periphery of society."
Conservatives since the time of Reagan have put forth the platform that insults those on the periphery of society, treating them as morally defective and unworthy of receiving some of this nation's great bounty...in recent years they've "upped the ante" by adding those insults to the middle class. So far all they appear to acknowledge is the "periphery" at the top.
"Only strong growth, evenly distributed, will do the trick."
Isn't that "redistribution" or "socialism" of something?...I'd love to see it, but I fear that I will be King of Mars before the GOP brings forth legislation that provides anything that's "evenly distributed" - that very notion strikes at the heart of the GOP's self-righteous feelings of superiority over those who have less.
Conservatives since the time of Reagan have put forth the platform that insults those on the periphery of society, treating them as morally defective and unworthy of receiving some of this nation's great bounty...in recent years they've "upped the ante" by adding those insults to the middle class. So far all they appear to acknowledge is the "periphery" at the top.
"Only strong growth, evenly distributed, will do the trick."
Isn't that "redistribution" or "socialism" of something?...I'd love to see it, but I fear that I will be King of Mars before the GOP brings forth legislation that provides anything that's "evenly distributed" - that very notion strikes at the heart of the GOP's self-righteous feelings of superiority over those who have less.
4
An additional problem we have , compared to Japan or Sweden for example, is our diverse multiracial multiethnic, multireligious society. Many of us, poor, middle class, even rich, just can't bare that 'the other' might get some benefit by making growth, opportunity, etc. more evenly distributed. Many of our fellow citizens feel that 'those other people' don't deserve some 'unearned' assistance, whatever it may be. So, nothing gets done.
5
America has not endured an economic meltdown over the past eight years. It has weakly recovered from one brought on by Republican recklessness before Obama was elected and it might have rebounded more robustly had not the Republican Congress impeded it every step of the way for six long years. That said, yes, we need the wealth more even distributed, but I have yet to see a Republican plan that will do that.
10
"Economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years??" What planet are you living on? America has had nearly eight years of recovery from the warmongering profligacy of George W. Bush. That recovery has been shaky and uneven at times, especially at first, because the economic damage was catastrophic--and Bush's wars and the global hatred they spawned go on and on while Republicans in Congress block all sensible solutions to protect themselves and their enablers. I thought you were more reasonable than this. Apparently not.
7
This article ignores the biggest reason why Donald Trump gained the GOP presidential nomination: the election of President Obama drove that party and its followers completely insane. This insanity has nothing to do with economics, and has all to do with racism.
4
"It means rewriting tax and regulatory law to stop discouraging domestic investment and squelching job creation, while also attacking the corporate cronyism that gives special treatment to wealthy and entrenched interests."
How to get that past a congress and executive that is owned is the trick.
How to get that past a congress and executive that is owned is the trick.
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
So wrote Ernest Hemingway in his 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises.
Mr. Brooks,
There were signals for the last 50 years that the Republican Party sold its soul to the dark side starting with the Southern Strategy in 1968. Opportunistic exploitation of its core base to further the aims of the wealthy has finally come full circle. Add an unreflective commitment to uber conservative dogma coupled with intolerable groupthink resulted in this Republican perfect storm.
It happened because the conditions supporting it were visible all along...to those who were open to see it.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
So wrote Ernest Hemingway in his 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises.
Mr. Brooks,
There were signals for the last 50 years that the Republican Party sold its soul to the dark side starting with the Southern Strategy in 1968. Opportunistic exploitation of its core base to further the aims of the wealthy has finally come full circle. Add an unreflective commitment to uber conservative dogma coupled with intolerable groupthink resulted in this Republican perfect storm.
It happened because the conditions supporting it were visible all along...to those who were open to see it.
2
It depends on the country. After the Wall Street Crash, the unemployment rate in Germany was over 30%. The Germans elected Hitler. In the 1930s fascism had limited appeal in North America and Britain despite high unemployment. When times have been tough many European countries have opted for authoritarian leaders. When France was in trouble in the late 1950s De Gaulle was brought back as a de facto dictator.
As the late historian Tony Judt noted, post-WWII economic safety net policies rebuilt the Western world. The safety net was more pragmatic than altruistic. It was created to help avoid the kind of destructive, right-wing populism that made a hellish nightmare of the first half of the 20th Century.
4
The essence of what Mr. Brooks offers us(much like his policy cousin David)...liberals and conservatives...here, is much more important than his "core reforms" for the conservative movement as attractive as they may or may not be to either side of the spectrum. His comments illustrate perhaps one of the most ironic potential fruits of the "Trump phenom": convergence of different world views around the flag of working together to solve real problems. Trumps' personal vileness has ripped the cover off of a politics that has become so enamored with knee jerk righteousness aimed from both sides at each other that's we are frozen in debilitating political trench warfare.
No wonder the non-elites, the folks that don't read this paper, the WSJ, the blogs, or whatever... are angry, alienated or worse. I know for a fact that conservatives and liberals both have ideas and approaches that flow from their respective world views that can be...with hard work...have the potential to be reconciled into fruitful action for the common. Exhibit A is Mr. Brook's column.
While we are busy sorting blame for political adavntage we become stubborn as the proverbial mule. Maybe, just maybe, Trump represents the hammer between the mule's eyes that gets us back to the work of a great democracy. Which, by the way is not best done with a hammer.
No wonder the non-elites, the folks that don't read this paper, the WSJ, the blogs, or whatever... are angry, alienated or worse. I know for a fact that conservatives and liberals both have ideas and approaches that flow from their respective world views that can be...with hard work...have the potential to be reconciled into fruitful action for the common. Exhibit A is Mr. Brook's column.
While we are busy sorting blame for political adavntage we become stubborn as the proverbial mule. Maybe, just maybe, Trump represents the hammer between the mule's eyes that gets us back to the work of a great democracy. Which, by the way is not best done with a hammer.
19
We must remind the writer of the unanimous Republican legislative response to the financial crisis in 2008: to do nothing whatsoever. Anemic government counter-cyclical spending and austerity were not an accident, but the GOP's plan to keep the economy on the skids so they could run against Obama's bad economy. The writer pretends there is no history behind where we are at. And as though decades in which Republicans pandered to white supremacy have no connection at all with Trump's appeal.
1
Only the American Enterprise Institute could characterize the economic achievements of the Obama administration as "an economic meltdown America has endured."
Seriously? From this dishonest premise can come no "insights" worth reading.
Yes, we are still paying the price for the Bush recession. But the Obama administration's record of job growth holds out great hope for the future.
Seriously? From this dishonest premise can come no "insights" worth reading.
Yes, we are still paying the price for the Bush recession. But the Obama administration's record of job growth holds out great hope for the future.
2
"Economic Meltdown of the past 8 years". Are you living on different planet Mr. Brooks? It was the economic coup of the prior 8 years that so reduced the taxes on the very rich, it gave them the whole of the regular taxpayers 80's and 90's accumulated "peace dividend". They didn't then come "roaring back". They just sat back and let their dynastic great wealth become obscenely great, all by itself, with no additional outlay or effort.
And then
And then
2
.
.
Trump is not a populist. Huey Long, a corrupt politician who pushed for improved roads and schools, was a populist. Former Congressman Ron Paul, to a degree, was a populist. Trump is not. Perhaps he is perceived as one.
So the question is, was it foreseeable that the people would rally behind someone claiming the mantle that Trump claims? The answer to that is, of course.
Political observer Barack Obama (who observes Capital matters because he is given few bills to sign and only one to veto so far) has said there is a straight line from Sarah Palin to Donald Trump. Palin, something like a populist, was far from being a professional politician; Trump is not a politician at all.
But one can easily take that back further: There is a straight line from Dan Quayle to Sarah Palin. Both had experience in communications (Quayle's family published newspapers; Palin was a television commentator); both were quite young as VP nominees go; and neither was wiser than the average voter. (Marilyn Quayle was the smartest one in that family.)
Nominating Quayle, then Palin, then Trump (with some Kemp and Ryan tossed in) told the public that the GOP really didn't care if government jobs were done well by seasoned professionals.
And what encouraged that lack of caring? The answer is, just about every word spoken by candidate and President Ronald Reagan. If gubment IS the problem, electing incompetents is a natural choice.
I draw a straight line from Reagan to Trump, via Quayle and Palin
.
Trump is not a populist. Huey Long, a corrupt politician who pushed for improved roads and schools, was a populist. Former Congressman Ron Paul, to a degree, was a populist. Trump is not. Perhaps he is perceived as one.
So the question is, was it foreseeable that the people would rally behind someone claiming the mantle that Trump claims? The answer to that is, of course.
Political observer Barack Obama (who observes Capital matters because he is given few bills to sign and only one to veto so far) has said there is a straight line from Sarah Palin to Donald Trump. Palin, something like a populist, was far from being a professional politician; Trump is not a politician at all.
But one can easily take that back further: There is a straight line from Dan Quayle to Sarah Palin. Both had experience in communications (Quayle's family published newspapers; Palin was a television commentator); both were quite young as VP nominees go; and neither was wiser than the average voter. (Marilyn Quayle was the smartest one in that family.)
Nominating Quayle, then Palin, then Trump (with some Kemp and Ryan tossed in) told the public that the GOP really didn't care if government jobs were done well by seasoned professionals.
And what encouraged that lack of caring? The answer is, just about every word spoken by candidate and President Ronald Reagan. If gubment IS the problem, electing incompetents is a natural choice.
I draw a straight line from Reagan to Trump, via Quayle and Palin
1
"The real issue is weak, unevenly shared growth." I believe this to be true. We have a terrible imbalance of wealth here and it is getting worse. It needs to be corrected before folks get really anxious and possibly violent. A Congress which could follow good economic suggestions rather than subsist on spite would be a step forward. We can do better. Let's start, real soon.
I think you don't understand those who would vote for Trump very well. To many Americans this is the classic least-of-two-evils Presidential election. Negative ratings for both candidates are very high. Many will vote for Trump holding their noses and many will do the same for Clinton. These voters will make their choices not because they fail to understand the downside of their selected candidate, but because they think that the alternative is worse. The NYT consistently has refused to acknowledge the less salutary qualities of candidate Clinton, which makes it difficult for writers such as Mr. Brooks to produce a thoughtful characterization of someone who might be inclined to vote for Trump.
The tradition Republican Party is dead. It has no ideas and it has not done anything of value for the American people in two generations. Trump has demonstrated that the white working class has no loyalty to the conservative principles promoted by Reaganite Republicans. Likewise, the Democratic Party has become the party of coastal elites. If HRC does not hew to a progressive agenda and achieve some real improvement in the economic plight of the middle class, she will be a one-term president and we will see the likes of Trump again.
Trump capitalizes on financial distress. He gloats about gobbling up failed properties and playing the tax system. He was ecstatic about Brexit because it will enhance his property in Scotland. Everything is reduced in his mind to "what's in it for ME." My idea of a president is a person who leads by example.
2
What's not to understand, Artie? The for-the-rich conservatives needed the votes of the yobs, bigots, and creeps to get elected because there aren't enough actual for-the-rich conservatives. They will continue to need them as long as their policies are nakedly slanted to the haves over the have-nots and have-just-enoughs.
And of course, there is just a little bit of bigot in most of the for-the-rich conservatives, too.
And of course, there is just a little bit of bigot in most of the for-the-rich conservatives, too.
1
I agree with the general premise here, that if wealth made its way to more people, they'd be happier and less likely to desperately vote for a common conman turned populist politician. But pardon me if I'm skeptical when you vaguely talk about re-writing regulations.
I'm sure there are plenty of archaic, onerous and unfair regulations out there. But when a conservative talks about re-writing regulations, he typically means those that are meant to protect health, the environment, or to prevent financial misconduct.
Without specifics, there is no reason to believe this isn't another Machiavellian subterfuge to increase the wealth of the already wealthy at everyone else's expense. The governing philosophies of conservative politics in America all lead to this. Quite simply, how can you expect anyone to trust you?
I'm sure there are plenty of archaic, onerous and unfair regulations out there. But when a conservative talks about re-writing regulations, he typically means those that are meant to protect health, the environment, or to prevent financial misconduct.
Without specifics, there is no reason to believe this isn't another Machiavellian subterfuge to increase the wealth of the already wealthy at everyone else's expense. The governing philosophies of conservative politics in America all lead to this. Quite simply, how can you expect anyone to trust you?
4
When I look up the word "populist," I find definitions along the lines of "representing the interests of ordinary people." These definitions sure sound right. Populist. Of the population, popular. Yet I keep seeing this word used in a derogatory fashion. Obviously Mr. Brooks (and many others) use the term to describe a rabble-rouser or a demagog– a person who arouses and encourages the worst parts in people in order to gain favor. I figure this out by the context.
This is an excellent example of the disconnect between the general population and the elite, Ivy Leaguers, the 1 percenters... whatever you want to call them.
When I read a person like Arthur C. Brooks describing a politician as a populist, it comes off as elitist and patronizing, like, "This politician is just pandering to the peasants. A serious politician is one who panders to the establishment... the rich, powerful, educated, elite, who come from good schools and have memberships to the right clubs, and have a house in the Hamptons."
If the elites want to stay in control they need to stop using the terms "populist" and "populism" as synonyms for fascists, racists, and demagogs. The people read these words and sees their oppressors being blatantly oppressive. Maybe in the corridors of the AEI these words are derisive and everybody is in on the joke, but out here it sounds like "fightin' words."
Tax 'em like Ike. Or suffer the consequences. [Those consequences could be the racist demagog, Donald TRUMP.
This is an excellent example of the disconnect between the general population and the elite, Ivy Leaguers, the 1 percenters... whatever you want to call them.
When I read a person like Arthur C. Brooks describing a politician as a populist, it comes off as elitist and patronizing, like, "This politician is just pandering to the peasants. A serious politician is one who panders to the establishment... the rich, powerful, educated, elite, who come from good schools and have memberships to the right clubs, and have a house in the Hamptons."
If the elites want to stay in control they need to stop using the terms "populist" and "populism" as synonyms for fascists, racists, and demagogs. The people read these words and sees their oppressors being blatantly oppressive. Maybe in the corridors of the AEI these words are derisive and everybody is in on the joke, but out here it sounds like "fightin' words."
Tax 'em like Ike. Or suffer the consequences. [Those consequences could be the racist demagog, Donald TRUMP.
1
Time for some fact checking. No, we have not been having a meltdown over the past 8 years. The meltdown occurred during the Bush Administration. Over the past 7+ years of the Obama administration, the economy has been slowly recovering.
That's the problem with Republicans. They can't fix problems, because they can't recognize problems.
That's the problem with Republicans. They can't fix problems, because they can't recognize problems.
1
There are reasonable people (mostly but not exclusively Democrats) in Congress and there is a reasonable President in the White House who probably could agree on 70% of what Brooks advocates. This group represents a narrow but real majority of the country. So the real question is, why can't this group get anything done? the answer is 1) a tyranny of the minority in in the Senate (thank you fillibuster rules); 2) state gerrymandering that has empowered hard right republicans in the house and 3) (careful what you wish for reformers!) the end of earmarks, patronage, and other essential "grease" that alllowed for coalition building.
The quite simple fix is to reinstate a top marginal rate of at least 75%. This will help in two ways - it will help to fund our pressing national needs in infrastructure and education, and it will help encourage those who already have made a mint to retire which gives needed dynamism to the labor market. Win-Win!
Note to conservatives: Conservative think tank president Arthur Brooks just confirmed that 1. recoveries from financial crises take a long time (averaging 8 years -- which would cover Obama's two terms); 2. the illegal immigrant population is significantly lower now than when Obama took office; 3. overall US wealth has increased; 4. the U.S. trade deficit has shrunk from levels in 2008; and 5. we need to give the increasing wealth gap more attention. Sounds like an endorsement of Barack Obama and Democratic political leadership.
1
More jobs and retraining workers won't get at the seismic issue of age, gender and racial discrimination in the American workplace today, some jobs will never be replaced with the advent of Bots, some cohorts of American workers may never be re-employed again - unless companies are held accountable to employing them.
Policies to address income inequality are what we need right now -- but look under the hood at the cultural and systemic issues that define the American workplace today (and over the past 5 years).
You cannot influence change, enact new policies and create new jobs (that will be filled by those we're trying to lift up) if you cannot tackle biases. We have to address these cultural workplace issues that keep people held back from reinventing themselves and rejoining the American labor force.
Policies to address income inequality are what we need right now -- but look under the hood at the cultural and systemic issues that define the American workplace today (and over the past 5 years).
You cannot influence change, enact new policies and create new jobs (that will be filled by those we're trying to lift up) if you cannot tackle biases. We have to address these cultural workplace issues that keep people held back from reinventing themselves and rejoining the American labor force.
Absolutely agree, but, unfortunately for Mr. Brooks, your party is run by a political and economic class whose only goal is redistributing the wealth to them---those at the very top of the economic ladder. And over the years, Congress, along with all of their retired congressional lobbyists, have made sure that all private and public wealth is funneled to the top.
Trump has started a racial movement under the guise of a movement for social redistribution. The people who follow Trump are likely to "repeat their mistake" because he answers to deep need among many white voters, rich and poor, today, which is their sense that their power has diminished. These whites see themselves as becoming a minority. They want someone who will defend their identity and their interest as the largest minority group in the country. Make no mistake, there will be more Trumps to come.
Who is this guy impersonating Arthur C. Brooks?
Has his body been snatched by an alien or has his soul been stolen by a demon?
Am I really a compassionate conservative instead of an empathetic liberal progressive?
Right on brother!
The federal income tax code provides deductions, credits, subsidies and lower tax rates. But only for certain industries, transactions, sources of income, business entity structures, contracts and securities favored by special corporate plutocrat oligarch interests who use their money and their lobbyists to buy the services of our elected and selected government public officials. Sending our jobs and their money overseas is their mutual malevolent intent.
Do you "Say you want a revolution"? Is "The answer my friend blowing in the wind"? Are you still wondering " when a change is gonna come"?
Has his body been snatched by an alien or has his soul been stolen by a demon?
Am I really a compassionate conservative instead of an empathetic liberal progressive?
Right on brother!
The federal income tax code provides deductions, credits, subsidies and lower tax rates. But only for certain industries, transactions, sources of income, business entity structures, contracts and securities favored by special corporate plutocrat oligarch interests who use their money and their lobbyists to buy the services of our elected and selected government public officials. Sending our jobs and their money overseas is their mutual malevolent intent.
Do you "Say you want a revolution"? Is "The answer my friend blowing in the wind"? Are you still wondering " when a change is gonna come"?
As Conservatives are fond pointing out, the Government doesn't create jobs. The Private Sector does.
And in most cases it's also the private sector that determines who gets paid what. Not the Government.
More for the managers. (lots more) and less for the employees has been the mantra for the last 30 years.
Of course the GOP is loath to pass any federal legislation interfering with this system. Like mandating a raise in the minimum wage. Or adjusting the tax code.
So how much can "Government" actually do.
Perhaps, from a political point of view, the GOP thought the erosion of the middle class was a good idea. To keep American workers feeling left behind until the next Presidential election. Then a main stream GOP candidate like Bush or Cruz could parley the frustration they refused to help alleviate into a GOP victory in 2016.
Instead the GOP got TRUMP.
And in most cases it's also the private sector that determines who gets paid what. Not the Government.
More for the managers. (lots more) and less for the employees has been the mantra for the last 30 years.
Of course the GOP is loath to pass any federal legislation interfering with this system. Like mandating a raise in the minimum wage. Or adjusting the tax code.
So how much can "Government" actually do.
Perhaps, from a political point of view, the GOP thought the erosion of the middle class was a good idea. To keep American workers feeling left behind until the next Presidential election. Then a main stream GOP candidate like Bush or Cruz could parley the frustration they refused to help alleviate into a GOP victory in 2016.
Instead the GOP got TRUMP.
Arthur, this piece describes the problem, but offers no policy for increasing economic growth other than targeted microeconomic fixes which would help but only on the margins.
I suggest you pay more attention to your Times colleague, Paul Krugman than your AEI colleague, Robert Barro. The main problem we face is continuing inadequate investment. Even though Fortune 500 companies are sitting on large amounts of cash, they hesitate to build new plant, equipment, and research facilities. What would get them to act is if the federal government would start spending a large amount on infra-structure repair, scientific research, education, jobs for poor and uneducated workers and young people. As Krugman has written, since interest rates are low, it would cost the government relatively little. On the other hand, it would raise incomes,
improve the mood of the country, and encourage businesses to invest.
I suggest you pay more attention to your Times colleague, Paul Krugman than your AEI colleague, Robert Barro. The main problem we face is continuing inadequate investment. Even though Fortune 500 companies are sitting on large amounts of cash, they hesitate to build new plant, equipment, and research facilities. What would get them to act is if the federal government would start spending a large amount on infra-structure repair, scientific research, education, jobs for poor and uneducated workers and young people. As Krugman has written, since interest rates are low, it would cost the government relatively little. On the other hand, it would raise incomes,
improve the mood of the country, and encourage businesses to invest.
2
This is an excellent analysis of the situation we are in and what would be the path forward. And this is written by a conservative with a working brain. I believe this to be an important column and well worth reading as I am so sick of reading columns about the mendacity of Trump. I am a liberal with a conservative streak, but I cannot respect the conservatives currently in power or who want to be in power. They are a dangerous bunch of ideologues. For the first time in my long voting life I will vote a straight democratic ticket. The Republicans in NC are a revolting bunch too.
There's very little conservativism going on in what passes for the Republican Party these days. The Koches and their coterie cannot claim a conservative mantel anymore than the much smaller and more inconsequential, supposedly populist, Trump supporters. And this isn't you say tomahto, I say tomayto territory--it's you say conservative, I say reactionary territory. The country needs to come to terms with what reactionary actually means. Mark Lilla offers the watchwords "political nostalgia" and "magical thinking about history." Aside from the sensible defense of free enterprise, Brooks' thinking seems to be precisely that--arguing for return to some proper balance, to a world where "people who know their place live in harmony and submit to tradition and their God." Lilla does have a way with words, don't he?
Advice from someone at the American Enterprise Institute -- that's laughable.
Donald Trump is a symptom of a national problem -- the Republican Party and the individuals who faithfully vote Republican are the real problem And after Trump has last on election day (fingers tightly crossed), the larger problem will still remain.
Donald Trump is a symptom of a national problem -- the Republican Party and the individuals who faithfully vote Republican are the real problem And after Trump has last on election day (fingers tightly crossed), the larger problem will still remain.
1
Fox "news", hate radio and an obstinate Congress stopped many of the positive solutions Obama tried to put in place. Until Congress changes, it will always be nearly impossible to change things to help the middle and lower classes, the environment, etc Obama actually has managed to quietly do a lot but he could have done so much more if he hadn't be fought constantly. America is a divided society, until it decides to unite, it will lurch along and Americans and the world will suffer. Maybe the FCC should review some of these hate filled TV and radio stations' licenses? They cause a lot of harm and encourage anger and violence. All that yelling and screaming and lies. Not good for the country's health.
1
America has always been controlled and manipulated by the wealthy. The structure of America's form of aggressive capitalism precludes any permanent redistribution of wealth or political power.
When the wealthy suffer a temporary setback from progressive legislation or FDR do goodism, they simply regroup and return to fight another day, always prevailing. Even if Bernie Sanders had won his leftist battle, the wealthy would have patiently returned to rescind his legislation.
America is all about the money. That's why I gave up the fight and decamped to Provence!
When the wealthy suffer a temporary setback from progressive legislation or FDR do goodism, they simply regroup and return to fight another day, always prevailing. Even if Bernie Sanders had won his leftist battle, the wealthy would have patiently returned to rescind his legislation.
America is all about the money. That's why I gave up the fight and decamped to Provence!
1
Once the Trump moment passes and he has signed to star in "The Biggest Loser", Mrs. Clinton will assess what she can accomplish in her Presidency. People who would hope to be in that conversation, even if ideological adversaries like Mr. Brooks, will attempt to find entree to the next Clinton White House. But woe to those Republicans who have been sullied by their allegiance, however modulated, to Trump. They will not have a place in any conversations about national policy starting next January, as Mr. Brooks has implicitly recognized.
Bravo to Mr. Brooks for trying to look past his party's self-inflicted wounds. Only those who ditch Trump have any hope of future influence.
Bravo to Mr. Brooks for trying to look past his party's self-inflicted wounds. Only those who ditch Trump have any hope of future influence.
1
"Conservatives are deeply split over the rise of Donald J. Trump." "The real issue is weak, unevenly shared growth."
Actually, the real issue is electing a sociopath to the Nation's highest office.
Your opinion reads like a description of a polite dinner party, when what we are facing here, with the possibility of a Trump presidency, is the destruction of our nation from a social, political, environmental, and international standpoint.
Actually, the real issue is electing a sociopath to the Nation's highest office.
Your opinion reads like a description of a polite dinner party, when what we are facing here, with the possibility of a Trump presidency, is the destruction of our nation from a social, political, environmental, and international standpoint.
The irony of conservatives being "split" on the rise of Trump is that their gerrymandering and voting rights grip that has given them dominance of the Senate and House, two-thirds of the governors' mansions and 70% of the state legislatures have has shaped every underlying facet of the populism at which they feign to marvel. That is, the conservatives must own the status quo they have wrought, and journalists and those guiding Secretary Clinton's campaign need to wake up: Trump would surely deliver "more of the same" with unfettered assaults on women's rights and a deaf ear to the middle class, no matter how his bizarre behavior might create illusory distractions. A straight Democratic up and down ballot is our only hope for the change we all voted for in 2008 and 2012. Clinton couldn't be further from the corner into which they've so artfully painted her, with help from a hapless media. Only Trump would be more of the same, on steroids.
1
What Brooks fails to recall is that it has been the largely GOP (conservative) driven congress who have consistently worked against improved distribution of economic gains and limited growth options by their tired and misguided conservative policies founded on trickle down economics. They masterfully have duped their supporters by waiving cultural war banners to gain their votes while conscientiously working an economic agenda that held them back. Trump is the national consequence, but don't forget to take a close look at Kansas on the state level.
1
"Some scholars like Robert Barro, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, see the malaise not as the inevitable result of the crisis, but as the product of bad public policy."
Well, yes, so do I. Trickle-down, supply-side, voodoo economics -- whatever you choose to call it, it was bad public policy. For the last thirty-five years Republicans have been actively seeking to harm working Americans. In the last ten or so years they've risen to the level of economic terrorists. Many Democrats either went along with this foolish and failed economic ideology or didn't fight it hard enough.
Seriously, how long did you "smart people" at AEI think you could go without working people objecting to having their wages pushed down in order to further enrich the already rich? AEI is one of the worst offenders among the "think tanks" for pushing "research" that supports that.
After thirty-five years of having their pockets picked people are finally starting to wake up. Of course, thanks in large part to Republican-sponsored legislation and propaganda, they've pretty much completely lost the right to avail themselves of their most powerful economic and political tool -- labor unions. I bet AEI just loves Scott Walker. Am I right?
Enter Sanders. And Trump. The real question is why so many wage earners are so delusional that they think Trump would help them when it was Sanders who actually represented their interests.
Well, yes, so do I. Trickle-down, supply-side, voodoo economics -- whatever you choose to call it, it was bad public policy. For the last thirty-five years Republicans have been actively seeking to harm working Americans. In the last ten or so years they've risen to the level of economic terrorists. Many Democrats either went along with this foolish and failed economic ideology or didn't fight it hard enough.
Seriously, how long did you "smart people" at AEI think you could go without working people objecting to having their wages pushed down in order to further enrich the already rich? AEI is one of the worst offenders among the "think tanks" for pushing "research" that supports that.
After thirty-five years of having their pockets picked people are finally starting to wake up. Of course, thanks in large part to Republican-sponsored legislation and propaganda, they've pretty much completely lost the right to avail themselves of their most powerful economic and political tool -- labor unions. I bet AEI just loves Scott Walker. Am I right?
Enter Sanders. And Trump. The real question is why so many wage earners are so delusional that they think Trump would help them when it was Sanders who actually represented their interests.
4
What you're talking about, though, is a redistribution of wealth so all citizens feel more secure. Right now, the wealthy are hoarding the gains of the recovery. That simple fact leaves us vulnerable to nationalistic fevers like the Trump campaign.
Trump is horrifically incompetent and morally flawed, and yet he's making a real run at the presidency. Now, imagine if he were actually competent and not a disgusting human being. Wow.
To protect our democracy, we need structural economic changes that cycle money back into the bottom and middle of our economy. As long as we allow the wealthy to hoard money (money generated by all of our labor) we leave our democracy in peril.
Trump is horrifically incompetent and morally flawed, and yet he's making a real run at the presidency. Now, imagine if he were actually competent and not a disgusting human being. Wow.
To protect our democracy, we need structural economic changes that cycle money back into the bottom and middle of our economy. As long as we allow the wealthy to hoard money (money generated by all of our labor) we leave our democracy in peril.
2
All this is well and good, but remember that such prosperity for all, not just for the rich, has mainly occurred when we were willing to have higher taxes on those with greater incomes. Add that to your equations and those with middle and lower incomes will be able to participate in the economy again.
It would also help if Republicans were willing to believe in good government, willing to pay for it, and willing to reject reactionary extremism. I suspect that's a bit too much to ask of them. But it's necessary for a healthy democracy.
It would also help if Republicans were willing to believe in good government, willing to pay for it, and willing to reject reactionary extremism. I suspect that's a bit too much to ask of them. But it's necessary for a healthy democracy.
2
What I find so hard to understand is the anger that so many feel toward Hillary Clinton, anger that derives from her husbands bad, boorish behavior toward women and her defense of him. Now, when confronted with a choice between her, whose background is filled with a consistent theme public service and sacrifice, and Trump for whom we have no evidence at all that he ever did anything for anyone else and plenty of evidence that he behaved badly, over and over and over again regarding women. His past (and apparently, his present) is orders of magnitude more despicable than anything Bill Clinton ever did (behavior, inexplicably, which Hillary has been accused of enabling).
Whatever happens on November 8, the core of the GOP will never be able to claim the moral high ground on any issue. Their Faustian pact with this yellow-haired devil has tainted them forever in my view.
Whatever happens on November 8, the core of the GOP will never be able to claim the moral high ground on any issue. Their Faustian pact with this yellow-haired devil has tainted them forever in my view.
3
I agree with most of this analysis, except the part about advocating "school choice". This is the line that betrays Brooks as a conservative, and it is a true fallacy of conservatism. What if the choice is between bad and worse? School 'choice' is just code for questionable, for-profit alternative schools that often fail and close, but invariably succeed in undermining the public education system. Just ask Chicago.
1
The raw numbers unfortunately do not measure or capture the depth of frustration among the 99%. That so many have turned in desperation toward a very icon of the cause of all of our economic downturns - be it "recession", "depression" or simply "malaise", is indicative in itself of why the process constantly repeats. But our teetering near a cliff can still evolve into a sudden stumble over the edge. And there is not yet a policy net strong enough to catch us.
In order to have growth, growth must be possible. Energy, minerals, water, arable land, we're not quite reaching the limits but we're close. No growth mean a zero sum game, a world where the rich get richer at the expense of everybody else. If growth is the only solution to inequality then we're doomed to instability and tyranny.
"The real issue is weak, unevenly shared growth."
Well, yes, but also absolute gridlock of governance at the Federal level, driven largely by gratuitously partisan media coverage and ridiculous rules in the Senate and House.
If the next president can't broker bipartisan agreements on pressing national issues fairly quickly, I fear we are in for a continuing steep slide.
Well, yes, but also absolute gridlock of governance at the Federal level, driven largely by gratuitously partisan media coverage and ridiculous rules in the Senate and House.
If the next president can't broker bipartisan agreements on pressing national issues fairly quickly, I fear we are in for a continuing steep slide.
A "meltdown" that America has "endured over the past eight years?" Really?
What parallel universe does Mr. Brooks inhabit? Virtually alone among economically advanced nations, America has experienced steady recovery since the catastrophic rule of the previous administration, no thanks to chronically continuing GOP obstruction.
Would we have liked better? Of course. In fact, if we can expand our attention spans beyond our current micro-bursts, the economy is steadily getting better and better. Yes, we need policies to ease transition to new realities. We might get them if, in November, voters break today's congressional gridlock against economic progress.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
What parallel universe does Mr. Brooks inhabit? Virtually alone among economically advanced nations, America has experienced steady recovery since the catastrophic rule of the previous administration, no thanks to chronically continuing GOP obstruction.
Would we have liked better? Of course. In fact, if we can expand our attention spans beyond our current micro-bursts, the economy is steadily getting better and better. Yes, we need policies to ease transition to new realities. We might get them if, in November, voters break today's congressional gridlock against economic progress.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
The failed economic and social theorems of American conservative philosophy, so eloquently rehashed and juggled in Brooks commentary are the core of the triumph of Trump in the Republican party. We used to be a nation where there was a loyal opposition that pulled together to recover from disaster. But since the Republican party has adopted a philosophy of total obstruction whenever it is not in power, that is all that is left of "American Conservatism". Well, that and Donald Trump.
"Conservatives are deeply split over the rise of Donald J. Trump." "The real issue is weak, unevenly shared growth."
Actually, the real issue is electing a sociopath to the Nation's highest office.
Your opinion reads like a description of a polite dinner party, when what we are facing here, with the possibility of a Trump presidency, is the destruction of our nation from a social, political, environmental, and international standpoint.
Actually, the real issue is electing a sociopath to the Nation's highest office.
Your opinion reads like a description of a polite dinner party, when what we are facing here, with the possibility of a Trump presidency, is the destruction of our nation from a social, political, environmental, and international standpoint.
1
Great points that pretend to be populist in nature but are only used to push for privatization of education. People on the Right and on the Left are upset with corporations ruling the government, we have had a grossly uneven recovery because our politicians saved the corporations and let people lose their homes and wealth. Giving these same corporations more tax payer dollars only strengthens our unequal and unjust society. This is just another effort to rebrand the cancer as the cure.
So, de-regulating the banks to permit them to enter riskier financial areas using federally insured deposits rather than paying the going rate for money in such high risk areas and basically allowing the financial and real estate businesses to do as they pleased led to a devastating financial near-depression, ... and Mr. Brooks' solution is to privatize public schools and give more tax breaks to investors? Because the solution to the problems of unbridled capitalism is more unbridled capitalism and the solution to income and wealth inequality is fewer taxes for the wealthy. Makes sense by our twisted modern capitalist philosophy.
1
Conservatives may be "deeply split over the rise of Donald Trump", but they are 100% united in opposition to any attempt to address the real issue you identify: unevenly shared growth.
Unless a way can be found to reign in wealthy donors from having undue influence in our elections, inequality is certain to grow. No matter who is elected president. That's just the way it is.
Welcome to the world, circa 2016.
Unless a way can be found to reign in wealthy donors from having undue influence in our elections, inequality is certain to grow. No matter who is elected president. That's just the way it is.
Welcome to the world, circa 2016.
3
Again, cherry picked statistics to sound the horn for AEI conservative commentary and solutions, no real analysis of Trump and politics as usual. It is all about Obama, perhaps the last president who actually thinks and speaks well, and everything that was done to thwart him and what precipitated his presidency. Too much here, but once understood, only term limits can fix this. If a president gets at most 8 years, that 2 four year terms for senators at most, and 4 two year terms for congress at most. Maybe then there might be some conversation about what is best for the country.
1
The takeaway form the article is that there is a critical need for history ... always. If the press emphasized history (context, perspective) in any and all major decisions being made by this country at any level of government or corporate enterprise or cultural movement. there could be a more considered approach about how to handle the current events being planned.
We saw this with the invasion of the MiddleEast. Anyone who had any knowledge of history knew that the problems of that area of the world were religious, i.e., the Sunni-Shiite internecine slaughter of each other for the past 1,380+ years. The issue was factions taking sides over whose prophet was the right one. Other religions have had their similar issues causing schisms in their organizations and splits of the faithful choosing sides.
And so it is with financial devastation caused by the greedy elements of capitalism. Left unregulated or controlled, society suffers through major disruptions. The conclusion? More articles like this one.
We saw this with the invasion of the MiddleEast. Anyone who had any knowledge of history knew that the problems of that area of the world were religious, i.e., the Sunni-Shiite internecine slaughter of each other for the past 1,380+ years. The issue was factions taking sides over whose prophet was the right one. Other religions have had their similar issues causing schisms in their organizations and splits of the faithful choosing sides.
And so it is with financial devastation caused by the greedy elements of capitalism. Left unregulated or controlled, society suffers through major disruptions. The conclusion? More articles like this one.
30
Arthur Brooks makes some excellent points here and reflects a genuine and conservative view of politics that would appeal to far more voters than Republicans currently draw. Do not look for thoughtful critique, however, from the readers here. The attacks will flow in as punishment for the weird folks who mingle around GOP politics, not unlike the criticisms that Democrats are communists; and we will lambaste the RNC, a timid organization that was as feckless as the DNC for letting a wacko like Bernie Sanders nearly run the table.
We need a real two-party option in this country. One would be a party that prizes the platform laid out by Brooks and one would be an all-out nanny with a penchant for the aggrieved outlier.
Then we could actually make real progress on working for both the determined and majority of Americans who are up for moving the country forward rather than ripping it apart or waiting for its sympathies.
We need a real two-party option in this country. One would be a party that prizes the platform laid out by Brooks and one would be an all-out nanny with a penchant for the aggrieved outlier.
Then we could actually make real progress on working for both the determined and majority of Americans who are up for moving the country forward rather than ripping it apart or waiting for its sympathies.
12
Mr. Trump is not a populist speaking to people who are hurting economically: he is a demagogue speaking to people whose average income is well above the national median. The belief and insistence that Mr. Trump is a populist is quite wrong, and sure looks like a head-in-the-sand thing for Republicans and conservatives who don't want to admit how horribly they've messed up by selecting Mr. Trump as their standard bearer.
Fixing the economic inequality that has developed over the years in the US will take some time, effort, and thought based on actual facts. But for the nonce, increasing the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy would be a start and help a lot.
Fixing the economic inequality that has developed over the years in the US will take some time, effort, and thought based on actual facts. But for the nonce, increasing the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy would be a start and help a lot.
97
There is no free enterprise. There is business protected by politicians from competition and risk and from the natural consequences of bad business decisions, unethical and illegal behavior in pursuit of higher profits. There is big business growing fatter and bigger off of government subsidies, refusing to train their own workers or pay their workers a living wage but expecting taxpayers to do it for them, while paying tax lawyers and CPAs millions, offshoring profits and factories to avoid paying taxes for human and physical infrastructure. Will Republican conservatives do anything to correct any of this? Not a chance.
"This requires a generational strategy to build an education system based on innovation, school choice and an emphasis on vocational training. It means rewriting tax and regulatory law to stop discouraging domestic investment and squelching job creation, while also attacking the corporate cronyism that gives special treatment to wealthy and entrenched interests. It demands authentic compassion for people on the periphery of society.
These should be the core positions of conservative reformers. "
Those also will do quite nicely for liberal reformers. Such persons seem more likely to get these implemented than Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
These should be the core positions of conservative reformers. "
Those also will do quite nicely for liberal reformers. Such persons seem more likely to get these implemented than Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
"So walking away from free enterprise principles on trade and immigration is not the solution."
Walking away from the status quo of current immigration and trade policy won't fix everything, but it is a great start at addressing what is currently wrong with American policy decisions. The US's current trade policy benefits foreign countries and multinational corporations at the average American's expense. Likewise US immigration policy (if there is even one anymore thanks to the Obama administration) enters millions of immigrants into a race to the bottom with Americans for the few jobs still available.
The solution to these two problems is very simple: do the opposite of what this "expert" is saying, and walk away.
And Trump, despite being the embodiment of sleaze, got to where he is now by strutting away – with a proverbial finger raised to boot.
Walking away from the status quo of current immigration and trade policy won't fix everything, but it is a great start at addressing what is currently wrong with American policy decisions. The US's current trade policy benefits foreign countries and multinational corporations at the average American's expense. Likewise US immigration policy (if there is even one anymore thanks to the Obama administration) enters millions of immigrants into a race to the bottom with Americans for the few jobs still available.
The solution to these two problems is very simple: do the opposite of what this "expert" is saying, and walk away.
And Trump, despite being the embodiment of sleaze, got to where he is now by strutting away – with a proverbial finger raised to boot.
It also requires a tax code that asks more of those with plenty than from those with little. And an inheritance tax that keeps somewhat of a lid on dynastic, huge transfers of wealth.
As someone who is prosperous and who's father's estate paid (modest) estate taxes, I fully understand and accept that taxation - within limits and set by a government that is responsive to the governed - is part of how we maintain the social contract and how we fund the education you speak of, as well as the infrastructure and basic services of a decent, humane society.
Some income inequality will alway be with us. But we are not powerless or policy-less to make our currently bad disparities better. We lack the leadership from one of our two major parties to get anything done to get there.
As someone who is prosperous and who's father's estate paid (modest) estate taxes, I fully understand and accept that taxation - within limits and set by a government that is responsive to the governed - is part of how we maintain the social contract and how we fund the education you speak of, as well as the infrastructure and basic services of a decent, humane society.
Some income inequality will alway be with us. But we are not powerless or policy-less to make our currently bad disparities better. We lack the leadership from one of our two major parties to get anything done to get there.
1
What do I read here from the President of AEI:
"This requires a generational strategy to build an education system based on innovation, school choice and an emphasis on vocational training"
All items the high tax haven Germany excels in.
Do AEI and the GOP have standing here?
Innovation: the largest business software company in the world is the German SAP.
There is no school choice in Germany. But the many schools were 80% of the students are non-native Muslims seem to work fine, mainly because the teaching in the schools is determined bottom-up by the teachers, and not by some overpriced principal found with a national search, as in, e.g., Palo Alto.
Or bullying. German School Districts do not spend $500,000 to attack the agency which investigates: teachers look for solutions.
Vocational schooling: to mimic Germany you have to create for 50% of the cohort apprenticeships (6,000,000 in 3 years), plus the parallel mandatory vocational 1,200,000 vocational college places. AEI and GOP would get a heart attack, because this is not trickle down, it is tax up.
German Unions and Employers are equal partners. ‘Stronger Together’, writes the Association of German Employers [http://bit.ly/qhSWu5] (BDA), and not the Quantum Chemist Angela Merkel, and report proudly that collective bargaining agreements cover 80% of all work contracts.
In a nutshell, German Employers will tell US Employers: It’s the Unions, Stupid! "No Cooperation without Representation". And dispatch AEI.
"This requires a generational strategy to build an education system based on innovation, school choice and an emphasis on vocational training"
All items the high tax haven Germany excels in.
Do AEI and the GOP have standing here?
Innovation: the largest business software company in the world is the German SAP.
There is no school choice in Germany. But the many schools were 80% of the students are non-native Muslims seem to work fine, mainly because the teaching in the schools is determined bottom-up by the teachers, and not by some overpriced principal found with a national search, as in, e.g., Palo Alto.
Or bullying. German School Districts do not spend $500,000 to attack the agency which investigates: teachers look for solutions.
Vocational schooling: to mimic Germany you have to create for 50% of the cohort apprenticeships (6,000,000 in 3 years), plus the parallel mandatory vocational 1,200,000 vocational college places. AEI and GOP would get a heart attack, because this is not trickle down, it is tax up.
German Unions and Employers are equal partners. ‘Stronger Together’, writes the Association of German Employers [http://bit.ly/qhSWu5] (BDA), and not the Quantum Chemist Angela Merkel, and report proudly that collective bargaining agreements cover 80% of all work contracts.
In a nutshell, German Employers will tell US Employers: It’s the Unions, Stupid! "No Cooperation without Representation". And dispatch AEI.
1
This may be the only apology we get for trickle down voodoo economics: "Conservatives love to emphasize the need for higher economic growth, but have often missed the importance of more widely distributed growth. Leaders should set their focus on a system with more opportunity in the middle and bottom of the economy."
Republican leaders' calculus that what is good for them is good for the country led them from one bad decision to another, to embrace the weak dynastic offspring from Texas, the Koch supported deluded Tea Party movement, to the gutter that is Trumpism. Reagan weeps. Abe is spinning is his grave.
So, R.I.P. Republican party, we shall hope to see a new truly conservative and culturally inclusive Party emerge, one that is dedicated to rational economic growth for the benefit of all Americans, with an appropriately sized government. That is a debate I would welcome having.
Republican leaders' calculus that what is good for them is good for the country led them from one bad decision to another, to embrace the weak dynastic offspring from Texas, the Koch supported deluded Tea Party movement, to the gutter that is Trumpism. Reagan weeps. Abe is spinning is his grave.
So, R.I.P. Republican party, we shall hope to see a new truly conservative and culturally inclusive Party emerge, one that is dedicated to rational economic growth for the benefit of all Americans, with an appropriately sized government. That is a debate I would welcome having.
Let's put the dishonest banks aside, along with the hedge fund managers, along with scamming reverse mortgage hucksters. Let's talk about the few honest business folks, who say technology has caused them greater efficiency at the cost of job losses, for whom they are very sorry. A factory that had 300 employees, now has 30. Whose fault is that? The jobs weren't exported overseas, they were ingested into ones and zeros.
What we need is the reconstruction of the county's infrastructure, can a coal miner be employed to refurbish our roads? Of course. Can an unemployed shipyard worker rivet a bridge. Of course. It is war against the buggy whip. We need an affirmation of progress with Americans included. Pence and his repetition of "the war on coal." How about the war on education in this country.
What we need is the reconstruction of the county's infrastructure, can a coal miner be employed to refurbish our roads? Of course. Can an unemployed shipyard worker rivet a bridge. Of course. It is war against the buggy whip. We need an affirmation of progress with Americans included. Pence and his repetition of "the war on coal." How about the war on education in this country.
1
I agree with the substance of this article, but contrary to its conclusion regarding educaion, the Republican Party has, since Reagan, depended on an uneducated populace to support economic policy contrary to that populace's own interests. This stratagem is brought to its finest expression by Donald Trump. An educated populace would require the Party to reconsider it's economic strategy.
Mr. Brooks does not mention that "strong growth, evenly distributed" would require not just the sort of tax and regulatory changes he suggests, but also elimination of the grossly unequal manner in which public schools are funded. It would require also strong federal mandates prescribing the actual content of primary and secondary education. The latter would save children across the land from the predations of semi-illiterate fools on local school boards. Only with those sorts of measures can our nation avoid more Trumps and create a self-sufficient citizenry.
As an aside, referring to Donald Trump merely as a "populist" as Mr. Brooks seems to prefer it, is an interesting euphemism, to say the least.
As an aside, referring to Donald Trump merely as a "populist" as Mr. Brooks seems to prefer it, is an interesting euphemism, to say the least.
The good paying manufacturing jobs of previous generations have been permanently offshored. The wealthy "job creators" and remaining corporations have neither the interest nor the ability to provide living wages with futures.
So what is Mr. Brooks' solution? The dissolution (read between the lines when conservatives call for innovation and more charter schools) of the public educational system that has not only lifted many to economic success (research the numbers of CEOs who went to public schools or universities) but has also provided jobs with benefits for millions.
This occurs in those states willing to tax at a level to promote an educated populace, the so-called blue states.
So what is Mr. Brooks' solution? The dissolution (read between the lines when conservatives call for innovation and more charter schools) of the public educational system that has not only lifted many to economic success (research the numbers of CEOs who went to public schools or universities) but has also provided jobs with benefits for millions.
This occurs in those states willing to tax at a level to promote an educated populace, the so-called blue states.
When corporate interests own the Congress, broader public interests in fairly distributed growth and public investment are crowded out by the narrow interests of oligarchs. Even Obama's most successful initiatives--the stimulus plan and the Affordable Care Act--were compromised. Had the stimulus included more investment in infrastructure, job growth would have been stronger in the short run due direct public investment and in the longer run as jobs begat private spending and better infrastructure supported private investment. The public option for healthcare would have obviated the need for much of the complexity and crushing administrative costs of the current creaky system.
However, an obstructive Republican Congress failed to take up the interests of the Public, but focused on the narow interests of their corporate benefactors.
Hillary Clinton take note. You will need to distance yourself from your sponsors as well and protect the broader interests of the Ameican people.
However, an obstructive Republican Congress failed to take up the interests of the Public, but focused on the narow interests of their corporate benefactors.
Hillary Clinton take note. You will need to distance yourself from your sponsors as well and protect the broader interests of the Ameican people.
This is one ugly Recession and it is cold comfort to have realized from the beginning that if ever anything happened to our wallets, we would be in big trouble.
How the President has managed to pull some of us through, with all the obstacles placed in his way, is beyond extraordinary. The suffering, the oppressed and the venomous poison in the air are devastating. While some of the politicians, the journalists and other witnesses to these presidential elections will be forgotten a century from now, Trump may be found in history books. Known as 'The Great Divider' who had the Nation go off on a wild goose chase, while darker and powerful forces were gathering.
There is a lot of work ahead of us, but will we respond? The President told us in 2008 that he could not restore the welfare of the Nation without help. We went home and closed the door, waiting for a remedy for our ills. Are we planning to do this again, those of us who are still standing and fit? A lot depends on the Grown-Ups among us now to rebuild America. There are plenty of 'babies' in our midst, but some of them are waking up with an understanding that a Bipartisan effort will be needed to restore belief in Ourselves, as a Nation, as One People.
How the President has managed to pull some of us through, with all the obstacles placed in his way, is beyond extraordinary. The suffering, the oppressed and the venomous poison in the air are devastating. While some of the politicians, the journalists and other witnesses to these presidential elections will be forgotten a century from now, Trump may be found in history books. Known as 'The Great Divider' who had the Nation go off on a wild goose chase, while darker and powerful forces were gathering.
There is a lot of work ahead of us, but will we respond? The President told us in 2008 that he could not restore the welfare of the Nation without help. We went home and closed the door, waiting for a remedy for our ills. Are we planning to do this again, those of us who are still standing and fit? A lot depends on the Grown-Ups among us now to rebuild America. There are plenty of 'babies' in our midst, but some of them are waking up with an understanding that a Bipartisan effort will be needed to restore belief in Ourselves, as a Nation, as One People.
In Kentucky, where I live, you can observe with great clarity why Trump is so popular. First of all lets be clear who we are talking about when we generalize about Trump supporters. These are almost exclusively white people who feel that the liberal agenda has been forced on them. These are hard working people who resent affirmative action and school desegregation policies they perceive as discriminatory toward whites. They believe the media is controlled by liberals, as is the university system. They believe immigrants and lazy people are taking advantage of our welfare system which is paid for by their tax dollars. They reject the "gay agenda" and feel they are being forced to accept it against their will. They believe the voting system is rigged. They believe the economic system is rigged. They listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. They despise political correctness. They like their guns and they believe liberals want to take them away. Climate change is a hoax. Evolution is a hoax.
Along comes Trump who is rejected by the establishment, in fact he gives it the finger. These people relate to that on a visceral level.
Yes it's ignorance, pure and simple, and the Republican party has been exploiting it for years, led in large part by the AEI. It's nothing new in the last 8 years Arthur. Please guide us to the white papers you have produced in recent times where you spoke strongly against these elements within your party.
Along comes Trump who is rejected by the establishment, in fact he gives it the finger. These people relate to that on a visceral level.
Yes it's ignorance, pure and simple, and the Republican party has been exploiting it for years, led in large part by the AEI. It's nothing new in the last 8 years Arthur. Please guide us to the white papers you have produced in recent times where you spoke strongly against these elements within your party.
2
"This requires a generational strategy to build an education system based on innovation, school choice and an emphasis on vocational training." Brooks shows here why people like Trump emerge and prosper. The GOP first turned to the Southern Strategy, opening the door to frank racism. Then they turned to inhumane, unrestrained capitalism (laissez-faire? free market?), and in the process ushered ethics and morals out the door. When some remnants of decency hung on, they were labeled RINOs, pilloried and primaried. And so came Trump.
Trump's record is emerging. His full-page ad demanding the death penalty for the Central Park Five; his donations, from his foundation, to conservative groups; his visit to Albany to explore a career as a Republican; and finally, his choice of birtherism as a debut message. Meanwhile, he remained a calculating but sad example of manhood.
Education is about people, not about making clones for the American economy.
Trump's record is emerging. His full-page ad demanding the death penalty for the Central Park Five; his donations, from his foundation, to conservative groups; his visit to Albany to explore a career as a Republican; and finally, his choice of birtherism as a debut message. Meanwhile, he remained a calculating but sad example of manhood.
Education is about people, not about making clones for the American economy.
1
It means rewriting tax and regulatory law to stop discouraging domestic investment and squelching job creation."
Private enterprise will not make any domestic investment if people don't have money to buy their product. Money must be put in the hands of more people to spend for non-essential products. That's done by the government stimulating the economy through investment in infrastructue and items benefiting the long term general welfare of the people such as education.
Quantitative easing is insufficient because there is no demand for products and corporations use the money to boost stock value by buy backs and dividend increases. This benefits those who own stock and have money. The stimulants must get in the hands of people who are just getting by day to day.
Private enterprise will not make any domestic investment if people don't have money to buy their product. Money must be put in the hands of more people to spend for non-essential products. That's done by the government stimulating the economy through investment in infrastructue and items benefiting the long term general welfare of the people such as education.
Quantitative easing is insufficient because there is no demand for products and corporations use the money to boost stock value by buy backs and dividend increases. This benefits those who own stock and have money. The stimulants must get in the hands of people who are just getting by day to day.
1
Same old, repackaged free-market fundamentalism we've heard for decades. Reformicons are the same old Reaganites and supply-sider's who's tired free trade extremism brought our economy crashing down on our heads in the first place.
The real need in America and the Global system, is to rebuild a 21st regulatory web that can ACTUALLY protect consumers and workers from harmful business practices and restore competitiveness throughout the economy by eliminating corporate favoritism and market consolidation.
Next we must rebuild our broken welfare system, restoring real cash welfare to the poorest families who currently receive next to nothing and have to jump through hoops and hurtles just be denied after 45 days of often extreme poverty and homelessness. If not we must begin considering a Universal Basic Income to provide a base level of stability to all our citizens regardless of wealth. This system could even come to replace Social Security as well as TANF.
Another serious hurtle to equality and political stability is our absurdly long patent protection for intellectual property. This is a huge contributor to our insanely high drug prices, as well as a tax money gobbler through Medicare and Medicaid. It also keeps prices of other, often necessary, goods much higher than they should be.
We also must stop kidding ourselves and move to a single-payer healthcare system. This alone would save trillions in tax payer money in just a handful of years. The joke is on us if we don't.
The real need in America and the Global system, is to rebuild a 21st regulatory web that can ACTUALLY protect consumers and workers from harmful business practices and restore competitiveness throughout the economy by eliminating corporate favoritism and market consolidation.
Next we must rebuild our broken welfare system, restoring real cash welfare to the poorest families who currently receive next to nothing and have to jump through hoops and hurtles just be denied after 45 days of often extreme poverty and homelessness. If not we must begin considering a Universal Basic Income to provide a base level of stability to all our citizens regardless of wealth. This system could even come to replace Social Security as well as TANF.
Another serious hurtle to equality and political stability is our absurdly long patent protection for intellectual property. This is a huge contributor to our insanely high drug prices, as well as a tax money gobbler through Medicare and Medicaid. It also keeps prices of other, often necessary, goods much higher than they should be.
We also must stop kidding ourselves and move to a single-payer healthcare system. This alone would save trillions in tax payer money in just a handful of years. The joke is on us if we don't.
1
It is good to emphasize improving education if only conservatives would even embrace such a notion. Thus far, they only wish to encourage disinvestment which is what is responsible for so much student debt. But even more difficult is the effect of advancing technology on work and the working class. Here in Silicon Valley, the avowed purpose of what people do is to get rich by destroying every blue collar job that ever existed so that profits do not have to be shared with employees. It may end up that any vocational education will be rendered obsolete by the time the students graduate causing them to start all over again. Few people will be able to keep up. Frankly, we just don't want to have an economic middle or bottom. They just need to go away and not bother the fortunate few.
This is a very confused article which seems to veer off its original theme.
Many people have argued that the rise of Trump was indeed forseeable based on how Republicans have played the public's fears in the past. But the article doesn't deal with this and zooms right past it to the second theme, which conflates two issues.
Trump indeed revealed important realities about the electorate (enhanced by GOP campaign techniques). This is entirely separate from the second part of the statement, that the GOP should become more populist. Maybe, but maybe not, separate from these realities.
Then the article veers off into a discussion of financial crises and how different they are. What does that have to do with the two themes introduced at the beginning?
If I were grading this as a student essay, something I did for many years, I would give it a poor grade for logical structure.
Many people have argued that the rise of Trump was indeed forseeable based on how Republicans have played the public's fears in the past. But the article doesn't deal with this and zooms right past it to the second theme, which conflates two issues.
Trump indeed revealed important realities about the electorate (enhanced by GOP campaign techniques). This is entirely separate from the second part of the statement, that the GOP should become more populist. Maybe, but maybe not, separate from these realities.
Then the article veers off into a discussion of financial crises and how different they are. What does that have to do with the two themes introduced at the beginning?
If I were grading this as a student essay, something I did for many years, I would give it a poor grade for logical structure.
You have written, "This requires a generational strategy to build an education system based on innovation, school choice and an emphasis on vocational training. It means rewriting tax and regulatory law to stop discouraging domestic investment and squelching job creation, while also attacking the corporate cronyism that gives special treatment to wealthy and entrenched interests. It demands authentic compassion for people on the periphery of society."
I would suggest a generalized strategy in which we rid ourselves of a Republican led Congress.
As long as we have a wealth-driven political leadership, America will go nowhere. The proof of that is everywhere and is certainly a primary reason for Trump popularity.
Money is killing us.
I would suggest a generalized strategy in which we rid ourselves of a Republican led Congress.
As long as we have a wealth-driven political leadership, America will go nowhere. The proof of that is everywhere and is certainly a primary reason for Trump popularity.
Money is killing us.
2
In conversations with the Trumpsters in my circle of friends and acquaintances I've found no economic distress, but a lot of genuine disgust with "the system". The system means politicians who do the bidding of wealthy donors, banksters and corporations that pay lower tax rates than carpenters and small businesses and strong feelings that our culture has become so politically correct that making a reasonable observation about a correlation between Islam and terrorism is unacceptable in polite society. On top of the feelings emanating from reality are unfounded feelings of anger at the prospect of losing 2nd Amendment rights along with hatred of Democrats and illegal immigrants in general that have been ginned up by Fox News and ilk. Mix in baseline racism and there's fertile soil for Donald Trump.
A weak recovery is a contributing factor. But you ignore the pernicious influence of the right wing media empowered by right wing lobbyists funded by wealthy benefactors at your peril.
The nomination of Donald Trump is partly a reaction to the growth of political correctness, but it is mostly a result of decades of well-funded know-nothingism funded by elite Republicans seeking to steer public policy for personal gain.
A weak recovery is a contributing factor. But you ignore the pernicious influence of the right wing media empowered by right wing lobbyists funded by wealthy benefactors at your peril.
The nomination of Donald Trump is partly a reaction to the growth of political correctness, but it is mostly a result of decades of well-funded know-nothingism funded by elite Republicans seeking to steer public policy for personal gain.
2
The GOP is about how not to fund or to run the government. It needs to re-think that. A balanced budget doesn't mean cutting out the programs that serve the neediest or appealing to regressive social policies that speak to our darkest natures.
We all need to pay our fair share and we need to not run a deficit budget. We need to pay down out national debt and we need to rebuild the crumbling 20th century infrastructure that has been long neglected.
Our common foes are illness, ignorance and global warming. We are poisoning our planet with wasteful and self-destructive choices in manufacturing and in consumption.
We need to stop mis-educating our citizens and distracting them with cheap social hot buttons that allow major issues to be avoided.
The question is how to reform the GOP to speak to these issues.
We all need to pay our fair share and we need to not run a deficit budget. We need to pay down out national debt and we need to rebuild the crumbling 20th century infrastructure that has been long neglected.
Our common foes are illness, ignorance and global warming. We are poisoning our planet with wasteful and self-destructive choices in manufacturing and in consumption.
We need to stop mis-educating our citizens and distracting them with cheap social hot buttons that allow major issues to be avoided.
The question is how to reform the GOP to speak to these issues.
1
Here we go again. It's always education. It's never the social, cultural and economic conditions that deter a child from becoming educated.
The simplest way to make America great again is to return to the Eisenhower graduated income tax. Cities, states and the nation would have the resources for public works and infrastructure and our oligarchs on Wall Street would have to seek the embrace of Mother Russia. A win win for everybody.
Wouldn't be refreshing if arbitrary price increases in pharmaceuticals resulted not in people dying but in pharmaceutical companies losing their patent rights?
The simplest way to make America great again is to return to the Eisenhower graduated income tax. Cities, states and the nation would have the resources for public works and infrastructure and our oligarchs on Wall Street would have to seek the embrace of Mother Russia. A win win for everybody.
Wouldn't be refreshing if arbitrary price increases in pharmaceuticals resulted not in people dying but in pharmaceutical companies losing their patent rights?
1
Why is it so difficult for conservatives to give up on trickle-down economics? "Unevenly shared growth" is manifest as increasing income inequality that is itself a consequence of tax policies that confer the greatest share of economic growth on those whose need for additional wealth is least. The reality is that benefits haven't actually trickled down to a degree that is acceptable to an increasing fraction of the electorate. What's got to change is Republican intransigence regarding income and wealth distribution. It's time to rediscover Teddy Roosevelt progressivism.
2
Brooks is correct that the rise of Trump isn't as much of an anomaly as many people keep saying that it is. When you are losing everything you naturally look for someone to blame. A lack of cooperation and leadership from both parties is responsible for the gift of Trump.
But history also gives us an example of what our leadership could have done to lessen the pain. When FDR took office the country was in shambles thanks to the great depression. But instead of government shutdowns and a vow to make him a one term president, politicians from both sides worked together.
New Deal legislation such as the emergency banking act, the farm credit act, the civilian conservation corps, the federal housing administration, and social security helped those who were hurt most by the depression start to recover. Faith in banks were restored, farms were saved, people who wanted work could get jobs, quality housing became affordable, and people could retire with dignity. Many of these programs are still in place today.
Hopefully after this election is over our elected officials will remember that they are in office to provide leadership and direction for all Americans and not just a select few. Investing in infrastructure, education and job training programs are all good places to start.
But history also gives us an example of what our leadership could have done to lessen the pain. When FDR took office the country was in shambles thanks to the great depression. But instead of government shutdowns and a vow to make him a one term president, politicians from both sides worked together.
New Deal legislation such as the emergency banking act, the farm credit act, the civilian conservation corps, the federal housing administration, and social security helped those who were hurt most by the depression start to recover. Faith in banks were restored, farms were saved, people who wanted work could get jobs, quality housing became affordable, and people could retire with dignity. Many of these programs are still in place today.
Hopefully after this election is over our elected officials will remember that they are in office to provide leadership and direction for all Americans and not just a select few. Investing in infrastructure, education and job training programs are all good places to start.
1
So conservatives are finally waking up to the consequences of the so-called Reagan Revolution -- a revolution for the rich that redistributed national income upwards. What he needs to also wake up to is that if government can redistribute income upwards it can also redistribute it downwards. That means a $15 minimum wage with transition help for small businesses (not Walmart!), Medicare for all, public child care, eventually a basic income (proposed first by Nixon!) and restoration of tax rates on the rich, including income and estate taxes, and also taxes on financial transactions to clip the wings of speculators. It can be done -- Presidents from FDR through Johnson did it and gave us the tremendous prosperity and middle class of the post-war era -- that is what Americans look back to, and its creation was entirely political. Oh, yes! Let us not forget restoring Unions and abolishing so-called right to work laws, the most pernicious attack on working people ever.
1
Confreres of conservative think tanks inevitably explain economic malaise as though it is the wealthy who are suffering because of tax rates that impede business investment, regulatory restrictions that stifle growth, and educational deficiencies effortlessly corrected by public policy offering charter schools and this thing called "choice" (of the educational, not reproductive sort). Such wisdom is spoken without a smile or shred of evidence that such policies yield either the behavior or economic benefit sought. When business leaders and investors are actually queried about whether high taxes or regulation prevent them from making investment, the response is that those matters are considered about where to invest, but control of the decision whether to invest are demand for the product, service, or process being invested in and the proximity to markets being served.
The conservative mythology, that free markets with no safety net, unreasonably low taxes, and no regulation necessarily will result in widespread benefit to those who actually produce the service or product offered is fantasy. Since Reagan, we actually have lived in a laboratory where these fantasies tested every day. What evidence has that testing yielded: supply side economic policies coupled with taxes benefiting the wealthy and penalizing workers results in the greatest inequality of income distribution known to modern history.
Brooks recitation of solutions is simply mythology, the conservative mantra.
The conservative mythology, that free markets with no safety net, unreasonably low taxes, and no regulation necessarily will result in widespread benefit to those who actually produce the service or product offered is fantasy. Since Reagan, we actually have lived in a laboratory where these fantasies tested every day. What evidence has that testing yielded: supply side economic policies coupled with taxes benefiting the wealthy and penalizing workers results in the greatest inequality of income distribution known to modern history.
Brooks recitation of solutions is simply mythology, the conservative mantra.
I have read and heard a number of Mr. Brooks views on the economy and our current political malaise. His sympathies are that of the "compassionate conservative," but he only offers the failed solutions of traditional Republican conservatives. School choice means diverting funds from the public schools to privately run alternative schools, which has had a mixed performance record. It is admirable that Mr. Brooks wants increased support for vocational education, but he offers no details on funding or providers. Paul Ryan also considers himself a compassionate conservative. The tax proposals that came out of Ways and Means over the summer would provide additional tax benefits for families with children. But it also had sharp decreases in the tax obligations of the wealthy, which Mr. Brooks says has received too large a share of past income growth. Mr. Brooks is a free market evangelist. He sees only a limited role for government in expanding the economy or improving the lot of the working class. Major investment in the public infrastructure or raising the minimum wage, are not in Mr. Brooks arsenal for growing the economy. I agree with Mr. Brooks that the populist strain in today's politics will live beyond Donald Trump. But like other Republican conservatives, he offers no realistic solutions for dealing with the economic anger among Trump's populist base.
Is this a fairy tale? Is it only necessary to say what is needed, wider opportunity for the middle and lower income levels, and we should all march off happily into the future?
First, America did not have an economic meltdown over the last eight years. Who said we did? The Bush recession hit hardest in 2008 and 2009, but the recovery was underway not long afterward.
Those who were hurt the hardest in the Great Recession were, naturally, angry. They wanted someone to blame. In the normal course of things, a revolution, minor or major, follows such a drastic disaster. The tea party eruption, aided by billionaire money and the help of Republican operatives, was one manifestation of that anger. Some people even blamed Obama for the Bush recession because they began to feel the worst of it as he took office. Instead, Obama and company should be given credit for holding the line and planting the seeds that began the recovery.
American workers have been fundamentally cheated out of wage increases. In this time when only rising profits matter, when Wall Street and taken over and ordered how public companies can be run, concern about workers comes last or next to last. "Let them buy on credit," takes the place of "eat cake" as a dictum for workers. We need a new balance in the economy and hihger corporate responsibility that looks to the next ten yrs. instead of ten months. How we get those is complex, difficult and will require much work and change, a reordering of American goals
First, America did not have an economic meltdown over the last eight years. Who said we did? The Bush recession hit hardest in 2008 and 2009, but the recovery was underway not long afterward.
Those who were hurt the hardest in the Great Recession were, naturally, angry. They wanted someone to blame. In the normal course of things, a revolution, minor or major, follows such a drastic disaster. The tea party eruption, aided by billionaire money and the help of Republican operatives, was one manifestation of that anger. Some people even blamed Obama for the Bush recession because they began to feel the worst of it as he took office. Instead, Obama and company should be given credit for holding the line and planting the seeds that began the recovery.
American workers have been fundamentally cheated out of wage increases. In this time when only rising profits matter, when Wall Street and taken over and ordered how public companies can be run, concern about workers comes last or next to last. "Let them buy on credit," takes the place of "eat cake" as a dictum for workers. We need a new balance in the economy and hihger corporate responsibility that looks to the next ten yrs. instead of ten months. How we get those is complex, difficult and will require much work and change, a reordering of American goals
1
Capitalism is modern feudalism.
Free Enterprise is not large capitalistic corporations, but rather small businesses that are dying in the USA, except for new businesses mostly being started by the immigrants that capitalist so-called conservatives hate.
School choice is fine, as long as every single neighborhood has equally excellent local public schools to choose from, while anyone paying for private school must also fully contribute to the costs of the public schools. Of course, there can be no schools, public or private, segregated by ethnicity, race or wealth.
Important to saving our society from capitalistic feudalism, is that the wealthy must be heavily taxed, with interest, dividends, rent, expensive real estate investments, stock options, and all other income not derived from pure labor being taxed as if if by labor. The graduated tax levels should be returned to that of the period that great Republican, Dwight Eisenhower.
Yearly Minimum Wage should be lawfully defined as no less than 1/50 of the full income (as defined above) of the highest pay employee, member of the board, chief exec or chairman of any and all corporations that do business in the USA, no matter where that corporation is headquartered or incorporated.
So-called conservatives, are mostly hypocrites, fools and bigots. The GOP as it exists in DC and state capitols is an embarrassment to decent and well-educated Americans except for the greedy, and the bigots that the GOP mostly represents.
Free Enterprise is not large capitalistic corporations, but rather small businesses that are dying in the USA, except for new businesses mostly being started by the immigrants that capitalist so-called conservatives hate.
School choice is fine, as long as every single neighborhood has equally excellent local public schools to choose from, while anyone paying for private school must also fully contribute to the costs of the public schools. Of course, there can be no schools, public or private, segregated by ethnicity, race or wealth.
Important to saving our society from capitalistic feudalism, is that the wealthy must be heavily taxed, with interest, dividends, rent, expensive real estate investments, stock options, and all other income not derived from pure labor being taxed as if if by labor. The graduated tax levels should be returned to that of the period that great Republican, Dwight Eisenhower.
Yearly Minimum Wage should be lawfully defined as no less than 1/50 of the full income (as defined above) of the highest pay employee, member of the board, chief exec or chairman of any and all corporations that do business in the USA, no matter where that corporation is headquartered or incorporated.
So-called conservatives, are mostly hypocrites, fools and bigots. The GOP as it exists in DC and state capitols is an embarrassment to decent and well-educated Americans except for the greedy, and the bigots that the GOP mostly represents.
1
Projection. Donald is all projection.
He criticizes the sterling Clinton Foundation:
completely transparent;
saves tens of millions of lives around the world;
and the Clintons accept no salaries for their work.
Yet his own Trump Foundation:
is under investigation;
cannot accept donations;
has used tax-exempt donations from others to pay for Trump's legal settlements;
and political donations to public officials with his business before them.
So of course he attacks the Clinton Foundation.
President Obama was:
a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law;
President of the Harvard Law Review;
taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School;
served in the Illinois State Legislature
and as US Senator of Illinois before becoming President of the US.
Trump, meanwhile, was:
a 2-year transfer student to Wharton college;
joined his daddy's business running segregated housing;
bankrupted 6 companies;
pays no taxes on record;
managed to lose nearly $1 billion in 1995;
and is being sued for fraud for running an unlicensed unaccredited Trump U.
Yet he attacks the President and the entire US government for being incompetent.
He confuses he own personal financial failures, unstable temperament,
and spiritual decline with the world at large.
He can't see the United States is the most powerful country on Earth, with the largest and most diversified economy, and a center of innovation and research.
Keep America Great with Hillary Clinton.
He criticizes the sterling Clinton Foundation:
completely transparent;
saves tens of millions of lives around the world;
and the Clintons accept no salaries for their work.
Yet his own Trump Foundation:
is under investigation;
cannot accept donations;
has used tax-exempt donations from others to pay for Trump's legal settlements;
and political donations to public officials with his business before them.
So of course he attacks the Clinton Foundation.
President Obama was:
a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law;
President of the Harvard Law Review;
taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School;
served in the Illinois State Legislature
and as US Senator of Illinois before becoming President of the US.
Trump, meanwhile, was:
a 2-year transfer student to Wharton college;
joined his daddy's business running segregated housing;
bankrupted 6 companies;
pays no taxes on record;
managed to lose nearly $1 billion in 1995;
and is being sued for fraud for running an unlicensed unaccredited Trump U.
Yet he attacks the President and the entire US government for being incompetent.
He confuses he own personal financial failures, unstable temperament,
and spiritual decline with the world at large.
He can't see the United States is the most powerful country on Earth, with the largest and most diversified economy, and a center of innovation and research.
Keep America Great with Hillary Clinton.
It is like a skipping record with these people. The next recovery post convulsive economic collapse will be even harsher no matter what investment in vocational re-training conservative capitalist finally recognize serves their interests. The problem is that we are approaching a point where human labor (the type of work done by working stiffs) provides less economic growth than other forms of productivity. People are thus losing their economic value. And no economic system we presently have can deal appropriately with this fact.
We are hearing rumblings of guaranteeing survival even without employment as a kludge to continue our market based economic systems, whether free or guided. But like all good kludges this approach fails to account for the fact that people need to work, not for income, but to keep busy and feel productive.
I do not know what the solution will be, but more of the same, even softer kinder, market based systems whether free or communist are clearly not it.
We are hearing rumblings of guaranteeing survival even without employment as a kludge to continue our market based economic systems, whether free or guided. But like all good kludges this approach fails to account for the fact that people need to work, not for income, but to keep busy and feel productive.
I do not know what the solution will be, but more of the same, even softer kinder, market based systems whether free or communist are clearly not it.
Dear Arthur,
You picked the wrong pieces of conventional wisdom to criticize.
It is right that the median income of Americans has stagnated since 2000. Moreover, the Great Recession of 2008 brought down living standards for the lower four-fifths of workers, and those incomes have not recovered.
The conventional wisdom that is wrong is the notion that "economic growth" is the solution to these problems.
The reason is simple. Living standards are raised by technological progress, but lowered by too much population growth. Technological progress has been slowing down, as pointed out in the excellent book by Robert Gordon, "the Rise and Fall of American Growth."
But the effects of population growth are becoming more pronounced.
You can see those effects by visiting Los Angeles. Many of the residents of that unfortunate city spend big bucks on fancy cars which they then drive at speeds of 20 MPH on crowded freeways, day after day, under a constant sea of smog.
The purchase of those autos sends GDP soaring, but quality of life plummets because of overcrowding.
One particularly noxious effect of population growth is global warming. What point is there to shifting from coal to cleaner burning fuels, when the world population has doubled since 1970, which would double production of greenhouse gases, other things equal?
It is here that Donald Trump has an important message. Illegal immigration is unsustainable and must be stopped, by e-verify if not by a wall.
You picked the wrong pieces of conventional wisdom to criticize.
It is right that the median income of Americans has stagnated since 2000. Moreover, the Great Recession of 2008 brought down living standards for the lower four-fifths of workers, and those incomes have not recovered.
The conventional wisdom that is wrong is the notion that "economic growth" is the solution to these problems.
The reason is simple. Living standards are raised by technological progress, but lowered by too much population growth. Technological progress has been slowing down, as pointed out in the excellent book by Robert Gordon, "the Rise and Fall of American Growth."
But the effects of population growth are becoming more pronounced.
You can see those effects by visiting Los Angeles. Many of the residents of that unfortunate city spend big bucks on fancy cars which they then drive at speeds of 20 MPH on crowded freeways, day after day, under a constant sea of smog.
The purchase of those autos sends GDP soaring, but quality of life plummets because of overcrowding.
One particularly noxious effect of population growth is global warming. What point is there to shifting from coal to cleaner burning fuels, when the world population has doubled since 1970, which would double production of greenhouse gases, other things equal?
It is here that Donald Trump has an important message. Illegal immigration is unsustainable and must be stopped, by e-verify if not by a wall.
Everyone is in favor of strong economic growth. The real issue is economic inequality, and that is not addressed by *free enterprise*. We need better government to address inequality. Free enterprise by itself just makes our problems worse.
We need to reduce the power of money to write our laws. That means more public funding of elections, and less private funding. Once we have a less corrupt Congress, we can reform our tax system to increase taxes on the rich. That would directly reduce inequality. The extra government revenue could be invested in education, research, and infrastructure.
We have a federal system, so state governments play a role. But state governments need to shrink, to lower state taxes. High tax states such as New Jersey need much smaller state governments, otherwise we lose jobs and *job creators*.
The coming gasoline tax increase in NJ will be a huge mistake. Instead of increasing this regressive tax, our state politicians should have cut spending. They could start by eliminating health insurance for retired civil servants. Then, the savings could be invested in our infrastructure.
We need to reduce the power of money to write our laws. That means more public funding of elections, and less private funding. Once we have a less corrupt Congress, we can reform our tax system to increase taxes on the rich. That would directly reduce inequality. The extra government revenue could be invested in education, research, and infrastructure.
We have a federal system, so state governments play a role. But state governments need to shrink, to lower state taxes. High tax states such as New Jersey need much smaller state governments, otherwise we lose jobs and *job creators*.
The coming gasoline tax increase in NJ will be a huge mistake. Instead of increasing this regressive tax, our state politicians should have cut spending. They could start by eliminating health insurance for retired civil servants. Then, the savings could be invested in our infrastructure.
Arthur Brooks writes a lot of common sense, then fuzzes it up entirely with typical AEI boilerplate.
But to start with the common sense: There was no way that there would be a quick and easy recovery to the meltdown in 2008-9. Were we destined for 10 to 15 years of uncertainty before we reached a new status quo. Government policy could not make that come faster, it could only make the "misery index" - the number of people in misery and the level of misery experienced - better.
In 2009, we cauterized the wound, and saved the patient. But we really didn't bother much with re-hab afterwards, and the results show. We simply increased the income distribution inequality more. The recession pulled open the curtains making clear that the losses from exporting jobs and automating more jobs were permanent, unsolved issues. People are not secure; they don't think their children will thrive, This make great fodder for populism.
But Brooks goes back to the same tired arguments of trickle down: change the tax laws and increase investment. Well, for God's sake, Mr. Brooks, we have decreased taxes on investments, we have rolled back regulations, we have protected institutional Wall Street gambling, we have had a court that favored business rights over individual rights in arenas ranging from arbitration clauses to calling corporations people, since 1980. Where the heck is all that investment in jobs? It's in China, in Bangladesh.
Great summary of the problem. Tired solutions,
But to start with the common sense: There was no way that there would be a quick and easy recovery to the meltdown in 2008-9. Were we destined for 10 to 15 years of uncertainty before we reached a new status quo. Government policy could not make that come faster, it could only make the "misery index" - the number of people in misery and the level of misery experienced - better.
In 2009, we cauterized the wound, and saved the patient. But we really didn't bother much with re-hab afterwards, and the results show. We simply increased the income distribution inequality more. The recession pulled open the curtains making clear that the losses from exporting jobs and automating more jobs were permanent, unsolved issues. People are not secure; they don't think their children will thrive, This make great fodder for populism.
But Brooks goes back to the same tired arguments of trickle down: change the tax laws and increase investment. Well, for God's sake, Mr. Brooks, we have decreased taxes on investments, we have rolled back regulations, we have protected institutional Wall Street gambling, we have had a court that favored business rights over individual rights in arenas ranging from arbitration clauses to calling corporations people, since 1980. Where the heck is all that investment in jobs? It's in China, in Bangladesh.
Great summary of the problem. Tired solutions,
The sentence that hits the nail on the head, I believe, is "It (giving up the need to scapegoat immigrants during hard times) demands authentic compassion for people on the periphery of society" followed by the social changes needed to recreate economic stability similar to the good old days when there was a healthy middle class before profits replaced patriotism that resulted in out sourcing, manufacturing leaving our shores, and the great disparity between the increasing number of have's and the increasing number of have not's.
It's curious, but perceived empathy (even if fake) is one of the main reasons Donald Trump has accumulated avid followers especially among the have not's demographic. They believe he understands them. They believe he has compassion for their plight. They in fact believe he is actually one of them despite his being one of the have's who is completely self-serving saying what they want to hear for attention getting and making outlandish promises he can't keep.
There's not much politically that can be learned observing Trump, except for one thing. He's demonstrated the power that comes when a group of people who feel invisible finally feel that they have been seen and heard. Even though sound policy is necessary, real expressed compassion and empathy should always be an important part of that mix. That's something it would be good for Hillary to do more of I believe.
It's curious, but perceived empathy (even if fake) is one of the main reasons Donald Trump has accumulated avid followers especially among the have not's demographic. They believe he understands them. They believe he has compassion for their plight. They in fact believe he is actually one of them despite his being one of the have's who is completely self-serving saying what they want to hear for attention getting and making outlandish promises he can't keep.
There's not much politically that can be learned observing Trump, except for one thing. He's demonstrated the power that comes when a group of people who feel invisible finally feel that they have been seen and heard. Even though sound policy is necessary, real expressed compassion and empathy should always be an important part of that mix. That's something it would be good for Hillary to do more of I believe.
2
While I don't disagree with the fact that free-trade, open markets and liberal immigration stances aren't meant for the dust bin of history; It seems, however, remarkably unlikely that the Republican party can continue to serve as a vehicle for delivering anything remotely sensible.
The particular history of racism in the United states (and appeals to it for electoral gain) and the fact that we no longer have a particulalry large homogenous population with a common nativist identity, means that the self forgiving elasticity of other electorates in different times and places doesn't exist here, at least not now. You can't be the party of knownothingism, racial hatred, and bland native populism as well as the party of free markets and constitutional conservatism once the former has broken the restrictive chains of the latter. Not in a country that is on the verge of being majority minority where urban dynamism is ascendant. No Asians, no African Americans, no homosexuals, no enviornmentalist, no immigrants, no rationalists, nor moderate progressives are ever going to give the Republicans a second look. They will not forget the stupidity and the damage done. Ever. If it were just swings in trade or immigration philosophy, those positions could be reconfigured or reinvigorated at some point....The Republican party however is a toxic brew that needs to be discarded and reformed into something more palateable first. Embrace the time in the wilderness.
The particular history of racism in the United states (and appeals to it for electoral gain) and the fact that we no longer have a particulalry large homogenous population with a common nativist identity, means that the self forgiving elasticity of other electorates in different times and places doesn't exist here, at least not now. You can't be the party of knownothingism, racial hatred, and bland native populism as well as the party of free markets and constitutional conservatism once the former has broken the restrictive chains of the latter. Not in a country that is on the verge of being majority minority where urban dynamism is ascendant. No Asians, no African Americans, no homosexuals, no enviornmentalist, no immigrants, no rationalists, nor moderate progressives are ever going to give the Republicans a second look. They will not forget the stupidity and the damage done. Ever. If it were just swings in trade or immigration philosophy, those positions could be reconfigured or reinvigorated at some point....The Republican party however is a toxic brew that needs to be discarded and reformed into something more palateable first. Embrace the time in the wilderness.
Nationalist, populist, "protectionist" economies vs. less nationalistic, more open, free trade economic systems?
We are virtually universally told closed, nationalistic, protectionist economies are disasters, failing economic systems, but any dunce should be able to observe the projected ideal of a globalized, "nations in harmony", free trade system is just a gigantic, closed, planet wide system identical to a closed nation but just a "wider circle".
If obviously the projected globalized, wide, free trade system cannot be writ small in sense of closed, protectionist, successful nation economy, then why would anyone say it can succeed writ large? We must conclude it is possible to have successful small nationalistic, protectionist economies but they are shunned because of the potential for division between nations and the prolongation of war--in short we embrace free trade not necessarily because it is the only economic way forward but for national security purposes.
The problem though in saying, for national security, that the only successful economics is an open, free trade system, is that it simultaneously puts off models of self-sufficient, closed, economic systems and calls into question why a gigantic planetary and closed system should be successful when all small scale models are constantly poo-pooed. Worse it puts many in mind that no truly fair economic system will ever work and that we advance the economically just in name only while the actual game is profit.
We are virtually universally told closed, nationalistic, protectionist economies are disasters, failing economic systems, but any dunce should be able to observe the projected ideal of a globalized, "nations in harmony", free trade system is just a gigantic, closed, planet wide system identical to a closed nation but just a "wider circle".
If obviously the projected globalized, wide, free trade system cannot be writ small in sense of closed, protectionist, successful nation economy, then why would anyone say it can succeed writ large? We must conclude it is possible to have successful small nationalistic, protectionist economies but they are shunned because of the potential for division between nations and the prolongation of war--in short we embrace free trade not necessarily because it is the only economic way forward but for national security purposes.
The problem though in saying, for national security, that the only successful economics is an open, free trade system, is that it simultaneously puts off models of self-sufficient, closed, economic systems and calls into question why a gigantic planetary and closed system should be successful when all small scale models are constantly poo-pooed. Worse it puts many in mind that no truly fair economic system will ever work and that we advance the economically just in name only while the actual game is profit.
Movement by conservative think tanks is welcome, but Brooks is still stuck on “growth” and “free enterprise,” with no mention of the scope of what climate change is doing to us, or understanding that the economy itself depends on ecological capital.
There are ways to evolve free enterprise, keeping aspects of it, while modifying parts that are blind to nature and inequity. They just don’t get a lot of mainstream attention. That needs to change.
These new forms go by many names. With partial overlap, these include forms of capitalism or business often preceded or succeeded by a modifier, such as: Principle, purpose, values-driven, mission, inclusive; bottom-of-the-pyramid; B-Corps; The Global Compact; Business for Good; Business Call to Action; Fair; Responsible; corporate social responsibility; green; organic; gandhian; sustainable business; regenerative; ecological modernization; Social; Business as an Agent for World Benefit; social entrepreneurs.
While it may seem naïve, most are already in use. At some point economics commentators and professors; regions needing to stand out; and political candidates, coming to see the old ideologies are not working, particularly as challenges get even harder, will present us with some of these as new options.
Perhaps even further out, these forms of capitalism will just be the way business is done.
Until then, most of these have writers, journals, conferences, initiatives—and companies trying to practice them.
There are ways to evolve free enterprise, keeping aspects of it, while modifying parts that are blind to nature and inequity. They just don’t get a lot of mainstream attention. That needs to change.
These new forms go by many names. With partial overlap, these include forms of capitalism or business often preceded or succeeded by a modifier, such as: Principle, purpose, values-driven, mission, inclusive; bottom-of-the-pyramid; B-Corps; The Global Compact; Business for Good; Business Call to Action; Fair; Responsible; corporate social responsibility; green; organic; gandhian; sustainable business; regenerative; ecological modernization; Social; Business as an Agent for World Benefit; social entrepreneurs.
While it may seem naïve, most are already in use. At some point economics commentators and professors; regions needing to stand out; and political candidates, coming to see the old ideologies are not working, particularly as challenges get even harder, will present us with some of these as new options.
Perhaps even further out, these forms of capitalism will just be the way business is done.
Until then, most of these have writers, journals, conferences, initiatives—and companies trying to practice them.
2
Our basic economic problem is relatively simple and easy to understand. We don't have to resort to vague undefined ideas like secular stagnation or supply side v. demand side to understand it. It's just arithmetic. All you have to do is to follow the money. We just have to get people to understand this. It is hard because people think the finances of our gov are the same as their personal finances, and that is just wrong.
People simply do not have enough money to spend. Regulations have not prevented us from producing enough stuff, products and services. Now it certainly is true that inequality exacerbates this problem. Too much of the money that is in the private sector is held by the Rich who spend a smaller percentage and use the rest to speculate. We have to get more money to the people who need it and will spend it.
Where does money come from?
Well, it could come from abroad if we had a positive trade balance, but we do not and there is good reason to believe we will not in the future (see the Triffin Dilemma). In fact, the trade deficit is one of the reasons we do not have enough money because it has been strongly negative since the mid '90's.
The only other place that can supply money to the private sector is the federal gov. When it spends, money flows in; when it taxes money flows out. The difference, called the deficit, tells us how much money is flowing net into the economy.
But the deficit has been cut by 75% since 2009.
This is our root problem.
People simply do not have enough money to spend. Regulations have not prevented us from producing enough stuff, products and services. Now it certainly is true that inequality exacerbates this problem. Too much of the money that is in the private sector is held by the Rich who spend a smaller percentage and use the rest to speculate. We have to get more money to the people who need it and will spend it.
Where does money come from?
Well, it could come from abroad if we had a positive trade balance, but we do not and there is good reason to believe we will not in the future (see the Triffin Dilemma). In fact, the trade deficit is one of the reasons we do not have enough money because it has been strongly negative since the mid '90's.
The only other place that can supply money to the private sector is the federal gov. When it spends, money flows in; when it taxes money flows out. The difference, called the deficit, tells us how much money is flowing net into the economy.
But the deficit has been cut by 75% since 2009.
This is our root problem.
Question: What do we have to do now as a nation, government, people and world leader to build a new era?
Answer: We have to erase the power of political parties to prevent the development of the needed government programs, officials, and expertise so that we can build an entirely new virtuous cycle. We need to invest in the new moonshots, Internets, fuel efficient cars, new levels of recycling, energy conservation, and sustainable energy production.
We need new machines and techniques to rebuild our infrastructure, and new ways to provide Pre-K through PhD education and build a first-class sustainable medical care delivery system. We need to build a new virtuous cycle as we had during the last half of the last century. It’s not just jobs and higher wages its investment and invention and a virtuous value-add set of new things.
The things we have to do are known, they have to be articulated, and turned into action. We need genius leaders who can find the kinds of people who know where and how to invest like the ones who gave us all the above. It has to be a government-industry consortium and deficit spending as it was during 1950-2000. It will be people who know how to plod and keep trying things. That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s secret sauce.
So now we have to pick the person who can attract these quality people and energize them. It’s not going to be Trump and a well-known obstructionist, has-no-sustainable spine, has-no-bench, floundering political party.
Answer: We have to erase the power of political parties to prevent the development of the needed government programs, officials, and expertise so that we can build an entirely new virtuous cycle. We need to invest in the new moonshots, Internets, fuel efficient cars, new levels of recycling, energy conservation, and sustainable energy production.
We need new machines and techniques to rebuild our infrastructure, and new ways to provide Pre-K through PhD education and build a first-class sustainable medical care delivery system. We need to build a new virtuous cycle as we had during the last half of the last century. It’s not just jobs and higher wages its investment and invention and a virtuous value-add set of new things.
The things we have to do are known, they have to be articulated, and turned into action. We need genius leaders who can find the kinds of people who know where and how to invest like the ones who gave us all the above. It has to be a government-industry consortium and deficit spending as it was during 1950-2000. It will be people who know how to plod and keep trying things. That was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s secret sauce.
So now we have to pick the person who can attract these quality people and energize them. It’s not going to be Trump and a well-known obstructionist, has-no-sustainable spine, has-no-bench, floundering political party.
These are the symptoms of end of paradigm reality. The Information and telecommunications era which began in economic terms in 1970 has run its course. Early it provided jobs that "lifted all boats" but today it rewards early investments with outsized returns for a few as the paradigm has shifted to efficiency, entailing automation to a high degree and job cuts. A new paradigm in energy and resource management is beginning and will provide many jobs precisely at the end of the economy that needs it. However, it will also foster creative destruction of some of the wealth at the top of the pyramid. People at the top are resistant to change, fostering a conservatism of the status quo. All of this has happened 5 times since the Industrial Revolution. Trump is merely leading the Luddites. The cycle is slightly longer than a human work-life which makes us erroneously think that we're experiencing a new phenomenon but we are not.
1
This commentary is true in a general sense, but misses some important points: 1. How one maintains a free enterprise system while at the same time distributing economic growth "evenly" is far from clear. Higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy will tend to hinder the necessary growth. This is not the 1950s, when dominated the world economy and could get away with taxing the wealthiest at a very high rate. The conflict between growth and distribution is real and perhaps unresolvable. 2. The less-skilled members of the American working class have nowhere to go. We are not all equipped to be "knowledge workers." Millions of blue-collar workers will never achieve middle-class incomes again. 3. Following on the first two points, we may not see populist anger die out as it did in the past. If growth and incomes don't come back, then people will turn to radical solutions. Germany was in some respects the most advanced country in the world before Hitler came to power. 4. The doctrine of unlimited growth as the answer to all problems is increasingly under question. As has been said by others, unlimited growth is the definition of cancer.
1
Nothing in Mr. Brooks' column is wrong or objectionable, but his focus on narrow economic analysis of gains for some and massive inequality misses some major differences between our current world and that of earlier times in which demagogues found opportunity at the polling booth.
Tax reform and addressing inequality through fiscal policies is important. But unless human nature, with its great breadth of intelligence, talent, ambition and even personal discipline among individuals, is to somehow change, the solutions of yesteryear will be insufficient to make reasonable opportunity available for all.
As has been observed by many others, the digital revolution is at least as upsetting of norms and standards as was the industrial revolution. We can see some results even now, with the revolution still in adolescence. For example, Brooks adopts the liberal mantra that education is a panacea for economic ills. That is true as far as it goes. But many humans do not have the intelligence, inclination, interest or discipline to take advantage of the proffered education. In the past, there were sufficient offerings that could be learned "on the job" which earned a middle class income. No more. Plus, women and people of color now compete for all jobs in far greater numbers than even 30 years ago.
Trump appeals because he offers one thing the digital world does not: A return to the past. It is phony comfort, but a comfort nonetheless, like a case of beer or bottle of scotch.
Tax reform and addressing inequality through fiscal policies is important. But unless human nature, with its great breadth of intelligence, talent, ambition and even personal discipline among individuals, is to somehow change, the solutions of yesteryear will be insufficient to make reasonable opportunity available for all.
As has been observed by many others, the digital revolution is at least as upsetting of norms and standards as was the industrial revolution. We can see some results even now, with the revolution still in adolescence. For example, Brooks adopts the liberal mantra that education is a panacea for economic ills. That is true as far as it goes. But many humans do not have the intelligence, inclination, interest or discipline to take advantage of the proffered education. In the past, there were sufficient offerings that could be learned "on the job" which earned a middle class income. No more. Plus, women and people of color now compete for all jobs in far greater numbers than even 30 years ago.
Trump appeals because he offers one thing the digital world does not: A return to the past. It is phony comfort, but a comfort nonetheless, like a case of beer or bottle of scotch.
1
"This requires a generational strategy to build an education system based on innovation, school choice and an emphasis on vocational training. It means rewriting tax and regulatory law to stop discouraging domestic investment and squelching job creation, while also attacking the corporate cronyism that gives special treatment to wealthy and entrenched interests. It demands authentic compassion for people on the periphery of society." The wolf in sheep's clothing. In other words Charter Schools (benefits the elite), deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts for the wealthy. When the Republicans in congress colluded on the day President Obama was inaugurated to prevent him any successes and to make him a one-term president what legislation is possible for job creation?
1
Employees have no representation on the Board of Directors of their company. The Board is focused on the health of the company and the wealth of the executives who sit on the Board with them. Unions have faded and their representation has faded with them. No one on the Board is assigned responsibility for the people who make up the company. When it comes to slicing up the pie - out of sight out of mind applies to employees. In fact, employees are considered a cost - not a benefit - to the company and, costs are to be reduced.
There will be no fairer distribution of corporate benefits without representation. Public companies should be required to report on non-executive compensation in their annual reports just as they report on executive compensation. Hopefully this would lead to a Board level subcommittee on non-executive compensation and a discussion thereof at the Board's meetings. The overall health of the company depends on non-executive employees as much as executives. They need equal attention especially because they're unequally paid.
There will be no fairer distribution of corporate benefits without representation. Public companies should be required to report on non-executive compensation in their annual reports just as they report on executive compensation. Hopefully this would lead to a Board level subcommittee on non-executive compensation and a discussion thereof at the Board's meetings. The overall health of the company depends on non-executive employees as much as executives. They need equal attention especially because they're unequally paid.
1
For someone who runs a think tank, there is not much thought in this column. First your are incorrect about the facts. The past 8 years have not been an economic disaster. The Dow is up and unemployment is below 5%. Contrast that with the Dow at 7000 and unemployment near 10% in 2008. People do have fear and insecurity. Pablums such as allowing the market to correct this are passive and not helpful. People want action-block trade, block immigrants, kill terrorists. Ultimately, a government that is perceived as active may provide some relief. The question then becomes, what actions? First, job creation actively, not passively over time. Infrastructure repair is the obvious choice, paid for by virtually free money with interest rates as low as they are. Second, support the weakest. Hungry children don't do well in school. Feed the poorest. Provide health care where needed since sick kids can't learn either. Finally, understand that a rising tide raises all boats. Raise taxes on corporations and lower them on individuals. Smaller businesses bear a larger burden because they are not corporate. Yet multinationals take advantage of US banking, defense and security in a much greater proportion without paying their fair share. As for charter schools, there may be some that work. But many siphon funds without benefit and the notion of cherry picking students and leaving the dregs in the public system sounds like trickle down economics, which certainly doesn't work.
1
" The real issue is weak, unevenly shared growth. If we addressed this issue, and if people felt their lives improving, the appetite for invective on secondary issues such as trade and immigration would dissipate. So walking away from free enterprise principles on trade and immigration is not the solution."
One of the best analysis I've read, so far, about the economic-social moment America is living in this election cycle.
The fact of the matter is neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump's proposals indicate a change in the current status quo. That is, the post-WWII market-based economic model has ceased to deliver prosperity and opportunity for all.
It will take political will and decades to somehow ameliorate the current income-wealth distribution question.
One thing for sure. The golden 1950s of unprecedented growth, opportunity, and prosperity for all can hardly be repeated.
The American people have to adjust to living in a society of restricted social-economic upward mobility. Make America Great, Again is just an empty political slogan.
One of the best analysis I've read, so far, about the economic-social moment America is living in this election cycle.
The fact of the matter is neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump's proposals indicate a change in the current status quo. That is, the post-WWII market-based economic model has ceased to deliver prosperity and opportunity for all.
It will take political will and decades to somehow ameliorate the current income-wealth distribution question.
One thing for sure. The golden 1950s of unprecedented growth, opportunity, and prosperity for all can hardly be repeated.
The American people have to adjust to living in a society of restricted social-economic upward mobility. Make America Great, Again is just an empty political slogan.
3
Central to the American identity is a "rugged individualism" that demands each of us do whatever it takes to pursue life, liberty and happiness without help from anyone else, let alone the government. We are taught that failure or success in this pursuit is largely a matter of each individual's character, revealing us as worthy or unworthy to the rest of society. In this way, the Great financial Depression of the 1930's really resulted in a corresponding psychological depression. The on going technology revolution has combined with emerging globalism and formed the perfect storm to crumble the foundations of this founding value of our nation. Like in a game of Jenga, the blocks that hold our social contract secure have mostly been removed and the whole structure is now swaying wildly in response to the least little perturbation. We are now confronted with another founding value, the mistrust of government. Only strong public policy can put the blocks back in the Jenga stack, but we are loath to trust our government to do this. We would rather send leaders to Washington who will cause the whole structure to collapse than give up on our core values. Only pain and suffering and loss bring enlightenment and change. Perhaps that's the only path forward for the nation.
The solution both sides of the electorate legitimately seek - economic growth and broadly shared prosperity - is much more likely to manifest if we start working not on how to implement the best form of government possible, but the best form of free enterprise possible. We should follow the wisdom of our Founders and place virtue at the center of our system of commerce to tame the beast of capitalism, just as they succeeded in taming the beast of government when they placed a noble purpose, with checks and balances, at the center of our system of governance. When American companies do the right thing in the first place (like sharing more wealth) - new laws, regulations, and government programs are never needed. This leads to healthier families, healthier communities, fewer divorce rates, greater workplace loyalty and competence, and a smaller government.
Sound too good to be true? It's not, and there's a way to get put virtue at the center of our economy, no government action required:
www.we-capitalism.com
Sound too good to be true? It's not, and there's a way to get put virtue at the center of our economy, no government action required:
www.we-capitalism.com
One of the reasons for the disparity in income recovery is that so many of labor's tools for making it happen have been dismantled. Conservatives have fought mightily and for the most part successfully to destroy labor organizations that traditionally had helped the middle class keep up with inflation.
Also, middle class voters have lost sight of the fact that their economic well being is predicated on there being a liberal government. Liberal governments are willing to tax the very rich and transfer the benefits to the middle class.
Americans have the unfortunate habit of believing this spate of economic embarrassment will end tomorrow, and they certainly don't want tax laws that bite them when their ship comes in. Probably explains why lotteries are so popular.
I've been union all my working life and my income has always provided a comfortable middle class life style. But I've been on jobs where the non-union people were making half of what I was making, yet they would not even consider joining a union. Remember when the German management of the Volkswagon plant in Tennessee wanted the workers to join the union? It was the conservative Republican politicians that run the state that convinced these workers to vote against their economic self interest.
Also, middle class voters have lost sight of the fact that their economic well being is predicated on there being a liberal government. Liberal governments are willing to tax the very rich and transfer the benefits to the middle class.
Americans have the unfortunate habit of believing this spate of economic embarrassment will end tomorrow, and they certainly don't want tax laws that bite them when their ship comes in. Probably explains why lotteries are so popular.
I've been union all my working life and my income has always provided a comfortable middle class life style. But I've been on jobs where the non-union people were making half of what I was making, yet they would not even consider joining a union. Remember when the German management of the Volkswagon plant in Tennessee wanted the workers to join the union? It was the conservative Republican politicians that run the state that convinced these workers to vote against their economic self interest.
1
The tax code favors investment over work. Work can be taxed as high as 37%, capital investments held for short a year or more, 15%. If you borrow, you can takes losses for spending the borrowed money like Trump. If the loans are forgiven you should have income equal to the forgiven loans like Trump and a lot of homeowners who lost their homes in the post 2008 financial crisis. But to get a pass on loan forgiveness income you must be insolvent. Was Trump insolvent?
I look at the US tax code 5 days a week. It is a mess. But I would never trust a Republican to write a revised code. They are the party of the rich and poor whites at election time but the party of the rich the rest of the time. A Trump directed re-write would favor someone like Trump a rich, spoiled, privileged man.
I look at the US tax code 5 days a week. It is a mess. But I would never trust a Republican to write a revised code. They are the party of the rich and poor whites at election time but the party of the rich the rest of the time. A Trump directed re-write would favor someone like Trump a rich, spoiled, privileged man.
163
Maybe, but I wouldn't trust democrats either. They both have continued to pile on the tax credits for their favored business interests. I don't know if the republicans would eliminate credits when they talk about business tax reform but at leas they are saying they would. Democrats just want to raise the overall rates thus encouraging more tax credit loopholes.
My God, Arthur Brooks, you sound like a Democrat!
What do you think Clinton is running on, if not the premise that growth hasn't been equally distributed since 2008? Sanders would go further and talk about the great transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the owners and managers of industry, as well as rich families like the Koch brother.
You sound like Alladin suddenly, suddenly casting your economic lamp around to reveal the light.
Perhaps with the election of a woman whose platform includes numerous programs to address wealth transfer-- including retraining workers whose jobs have been moved offshore or replaced by more efficient production methods (eg, natural gas over coal)--the country can begin to address these inequities instead of making them worse through the Paul Ryan budget plan.
Welcome to the Democratic Party, Mr. Brooks. Nice to see you.
What do you think Clinton is running on, if not the premise that growth hasn't been equally distributed since 2008? Sanders would go further and talk about the great transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the owners and managers of industry, as well as rich families like the Koch brother.
You sound like Alladin suddenly, suddenly casting your economic lamp around to reveal the light.
Perhaps with the election of a woman whose platform includes numerous programs to address wealth transfer-- including retraining workers whose jobs have been moved offshore or replaced by more efficient production methods (eg, natural gas over coal)--the country can begin to address these inequities instead of making them worse through the Paul Ryan budget plan.
Welcome to the Democratic Party, Mr. Brooks. Nice to see you.
251
Christine,
Well said.
"The real issue is weak, uneven growth."
I wonder if Mr. Brooks has ACTUALLY looked at what Pres. Obama and the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 8 years? We Dems have been saying that the all through the nearly expired Obama administration! But Obama's policies that would have addressed that have been blocked at every turn by a Republican congress which wants tax cuts that will mostly benefit the wealthy and INCREASE income inequality! ( I've got to start drinking decaf.)
Well said.
"The real issue is weak, uneven growth."
I wonder if Mr. Brooks has ACTUALLY looked at what Pres. Obama and the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 8 years? We Dems have been saying that the all through the nearly expired Obama administration! But Obama's policies that would have addressed that have been blocked at every turn by a Republican congress which wants tax cuts that will mostly benefit the wealthy and INCREASE income inequality! ( I've got to start drinking decaf.)
Don't fall for repackaged Republicanism.
You took the words right out of my mouth!
"Throwing away free enterprise will neither solve our nation’s problems nor create enduring political victories."
I don't think anyone is remotely considering throwing away free enterprise. Rather, like a river can flood or a forest that can burn, we seek to mitigate some of the damage it can do, while harnessing its benefits.
A balance is needed - and it is an engineering balance, not an ideological one. In the alleged words of Hillary Clinton in the leaked Podesta emails: "There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works?....it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework..."
https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/927
If the world conformed to our ideologies, we'd know all there is to know about the world merely by studying our ideology. But the world does not work that way. "How do we figure out what works?" is a never-ending exercise in science-like and engineering-like disciplines.
PS: the leaked email was most reassuring to me, in that Clinton is clearly not an ideologue.
"SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties.
URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.”
I don't think anyone is remotely considering throwing away free enterprise. Rather, like a river can flood or a forest that can burn, we seek to mitigate some of the damage it can do, while harnessing its benefits.
A balance is needed - and it is an engineering balance, not an ideological one. In the alleged words of Hillary Clinton in the leaked Podesta emails: "There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works?....it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework..."
https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/927
If the world conformed to our ideologies, we'd know all there is to know about the world merely by studying our ideology. But the world does not work that way. "How do we figure out what works?" is a never-ending exercise in science-like and engineering-like disciplines.
PS: the leaked email was most reassuring to me, in that Clinton is clearly not an ideologue.
"SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties.
URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.”
101
Here's a deal I would like to think about - get corporate income taxes close to a simple flat tax; for each loophole and exemption closed, reduce the corporate tax rate to keep the changes overall revenue-neutral.
Once that reform is completed and in operation for a few years, we can see what next.
Once that reform is completed and in operation for a few years, we can see what next.
18
There is a lot that appears sensible in the article but "Indeed, political populism has often followed economic meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years" makes me distrust the author.
America suffered an economic meltdown eight years ago; and has been in a slow but steady recovery ever since. We don't know if it could have been a faster recovery because the party on Arthur Brooks' side of the aisle blocked all efforts to find out.
America suffered an economic meltdown eight years ago; and has been in a slow but steady recovery ever since. We don't know if it could have been a faster recovery because the party on Arthur Brooks' side of the aisle blocked all efforts to find out.
255
Agreed.
And...
...couldn't you describe the lead-up to 2008 as GOP populism? Remember the Iraq War? The fear of "death panels"? The Tea Party? The annual war on Christmas? The birther movement? The repeal of the "death tax"? These were all "populist" movements or positions. Professional, uber-wealthy-funded demagoguery.
Everything Mr. Brooks dislikes seems to be "popul-ism," but he does not acknowledge that he is part of the party of demagogic, racist, xenophobic populism. He needs to get out more and talk to the popul-ation.
And...
...couldn't you describe the lead-up to 2008 as GOP populism? Remember the Iraq War? The fear of "death panels"? The Tea Party? The annual war on Christmas? The birther movement? The repeal of the "death tax"? These were all "populist" movements or positions. Professional, uber-wealthy-funded demagoguery.
Everything Mr. Brooks dislikes seems to be "popul-ism," but he does not acknowledge that he is part of the party of demagogic, racist, xenophobic populism. He needs to get out more and talk to the popul-ation.
1
Yes and President Obama lacked the political skill to get the job done.
"Strong growth more evenly distributed." Hmm...Mr Brooks. When did that last happen? Hint: Under a President whose name starts with a "c."
180
The proposed solutions are way too little and way too late. A ten year program of $3.6 trillion federal government spending on infrastructure is needed now to rebuild the basics of the country. That is what would make it Great Again.
76
The $3.6 trillion should have been spent in the immediate years following the 2008 crisis. It would have dampened the fall, sped up the recovery, put many working class Americans to work, and revitalized the infrastructure. We should have also reduced the cost of college education to provide for a more vibrant and well-prepared workforce for when the crisis ended.
"Thanks" to republicans this was a non-starter. The "party of business" didn't and still doesn't know the meaning of the word investment. You need to spend money to make money. That's Business 101.
"Thanks" to republicans this was a non-starter. The "party of business" didn't and still doesn't know the meaning of the word investment. You need to spend money to make money. That's Business 101.
"... meltdowns like the one America has endured over the past eight years."
Say what?
Say what?
159
I don't understand your comment WestCoastFlower, but it sounds like "Let them eat cake". Yes, the strongest financial crisis in the US since the Great Depression did end several years ago for people who live off equities and inherited wealth. For many of the youngest and most educated workers, things started to get gradually better during the Obama administrations, as the unemployment rate was slowly cut in half. Still, wages for particular jobs rose not at all, and many of the new jobs were in lower-paying categories. To make matters worse, young workers had to have a higher educational level to get the same jobs, putting an extra financial burden on them and their families. Finally, in the past six months, we have seen the first solid signs of real wage growth and the first signs of an increased labor participation rate. Sadly, for many of the long-term unemployed it's all too late. To alter the old song 16 Tons a bit: "They're another 8 years older and deeper in debt." I am happy for you, WestCoastFlower, that you got through all this unscathed.
I was about to make the same comment as WestCoastFlower. Mr. Brooks, under which president did the "meltdown" occur? As slow as it has been and uneven as it has been, the economy is recovering under President Obama.
1
"School choice" is a euphemism for privatization, draining taxpayer dollars out of the public schools and into the pockets of greedy businessmen. Study after study has shown that charter schools don't produce superior educational outcomes despite the advantage of being able to exclude those students most difficult to teach. Some of these outfits have been revealed to be outright money-thieving scams.
The most galling aspect of the Republicans' support for educational privatization is their pretense that they care about black children. This is proven to be a lie by their blatant racism, especially that of their current presidential candidate, which is on constant display. A GOP leader last week even bragged about the party creating a "Willie Horton-style" attack ad.
In their disdain for "political correctness," they've stopped using all but a few code words and phrases. "School choice" is one of the few remaining. What it really means is "We hate the teachers' unions because most of their members are well-educated women smart enough not to vote Republican."
The most galling aspect of the Republicans' support for educational privatization is their pretense that they care about black children. This is proven to be a lie by their blatant racism, especially that of their current presidential candidate, which is on constant display. A GOP leader last week even bragged about the party creating a "Willie Horton-style" attack ad.
In their disdain for "political correctness," they've stopped using all but a few code words and phrases. "School choice" is one of the few remaining. What it really means is "We hate the teachers' unions because most of their members are well-educated women smart enough not to vote Republican."
138
Don't forget the strong flavor of segregation by race and religion that is suggested by "school choice".
Mr. Brooks correctly observes that gains in the economy need to be shared on a more equitable basis. But curiously, he does not identify one obvious way to do so: increasing taxes on the ultra-wealthy people who have vacuumed up virtually all of the economic growth since 2008. Their taxes need to go up, the execrable tax loopholes that advantage the wealthy need to be closed, and the resulting revenues need to be used for the benefit of middle-class, working-class, and poor Americans. Neither major party has been eager to espouse that, but they need to now, before the festering anger of those left behind destroys our democracy.
50
Increasing taxes on the ultra wealthy, even to punitive levels (90% or higher), will not yield enough taxes to make any observable difference to the lives of others Americans. While the tax revenue might pay for specific targeted (government) programs, the majority of Americans will see little change to the services they receive from government, and no discernible change to their after tax incomes.
Well, now we know that Donald Trump wants to Make America Grope Again, and this article is automatically out of date.
52
Pithy as can be. You could probably make a mint putting it on baseball caps and T-shirts. Far more serious and unfunny is this variant on Trumpism: "Make America Hate Again".
Mr. Brooks correctly attributes our current malaise largely to sharply increased economic inequality and cautions his fellow conservatives that only a "more widely distributed growth" can destroy the appeal of candidates like Donald Trump.
When he discusses specific policies that might achieve this goal, however, his inner Reagan emerges and he demands lower taxes (implicitly on the job creators) and fewer regulations, combined with educational innovation that emphasizes school choice and vocational training. Brooks also calls for "authentic compassion" for marginalized groups, although he mentions no policies that might give concrete expression to this empathy.
He omits any demand for a higher minimum wage or a more robust safety net, nor does he call for sharply increased federal spending on the infrastructure. His proposed school reforms, moreover, reflect conservative hostility to public schools more than a commitment to create an educational system that could meet the needs of our rapidly changing service economy.
Brooks makes all the right noises about the need to reduce economic inequality, but his standard trickle-down theory recommendations contain no measures that might actually advance that objective. To use a biblical metaphor, he has poured old Republican wine into new populist bottles, but he will fool no one.
When he discusses specific policies that might achieve this goal, however, his inner Reagan emerges and he demands lower taxes (implicitly on the job creators) and fewer regulations, combined with educational innovation that emphasizes school choice and vocational training. Brooks also calls for "authentic compassion" for marginalized groups, although he mentions no policies that might give concrete expression to this empathy.
He omits any demand for a higher minimum wage or a more robust safety net, nor does he call for sharply increased federal spending on the infrastructure. His proposed school reforms, moreover, reflect conservative hostility to public schools more than a commitment to create an educational system that could meet the needs of our rapidly changing service economy.
Brooks makes all the right noises about the need to reduce economic inequality, but his standard trickle-down theory recommendations contain no measures that might actually advance that objective. To use a biblical metaphor, he has poured old Republican wine into new populist bottles, but he will fool no one.
105
Many on the Trump side complain about their economic status but they seem to not blame this on their lack of a voice in the workplace. One's voice in the workplace is available when the workers organize and join a union. The Republican party hates unions.
1
The economic meltdown of the last eight years? Apparently, like Mr trump, you just say stuff.
162
It's fascinating that when people are afraid of the loss of status, money, power, etc, they tend to blame those who have even less status, money or power.
It just goes to show you how very effective those who have the most status, money and power are when it comes to protecting themselves from the "mob" and re-directing the blame. And complicit with those greedsters are (i) the news media which focuses like a lightening bolt on the relatively minor depredations of the poor, the powerless and the minority population while mostly ignoring the major depredations of the rich and powerful (well, I guess a bodega heist Trumps a hedge fund heist -- after all, there's a GUN involved in the former) and (ii) the entertainment industry which dumbs-down all of us with its lust for the sex and violence part of the human animal over the thinking part which, if it were empowered, might actually serve to make us all better people -- i.e., less filled with fear/hate of the less powerful and less filed with want/desire for sex and violence.
It just goes to show you how very effective those who have the most status, money and power are when it comes to protecting themselves from the "mob" and re-directing the blame. And complicit with those greedsters are (i) the news media which focuses like a lightening bolt on the relatively minor depredations of the poor, the powerless and the minority population while mostly ignoring the major depredations of the rich and powerful (well, I guess a bodega heist Trumps a hedge fund heist -- after all, there's a GUN involved in the former) and (ii) the entertainment industry which dumbs-down all of us with its lust for the sex and violence part of the human animal over the thinking part which, if it were empowered, might actually serve to make us all better people -- i.e., less filled with fear/hate of the less powerful and less filed with want/desire for sex and violence.
53
Mr. Brooks, the populace to which you refer was encapsulated by Hillary Clinton, in the second part of her remarks on Trump supporters, when she described "...people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
Mrs. Clinton is cognizant of this group and is looking for strategies stop the despair. Neither Trump nor the GOP seek solutions for those being squeezed out, they are stirring up fake outrage over those who are simply deplorable.
Mrs. Clinton is cognizant of this group and is looking for strategies stop the despair. Neither Trump nor the GOP seek solutions for those being squeezed out, they are stirring up fake outrage over those who are simply deplorable.
136
When you advocate that the nation should do what the Nordic countries do, why not say so? Because of the infamous S-libel?
If you allow an angry uninformed mob braying about "socialism" shape the discourse, rational and reasoned debate becomes difficult and progress nearly impossible.
If you allow an angry uninformed mob braying about "socialism" shape the discourse, rational and reasoned debate becomes difficult and progress nearly impossible.
98
What you are describing is pretty close to Obama's programs that have been thwarted by the Republican Congress.
319
Uh, the meltdown happened 8 years ago. While this may not be the star recovery, no thanks to Republican obstructionism, a meltdown it hasn't been.
183
I think you underestimate. The meltdown started in 1964, when they realized they could get by with just the crazy people, and they needed to add the bigots and know-nothings. When they finally got them all, it was 1980.
1
"...The real issue is weak, unevenly shared growth. If we addressed this issue, and if people felt their lives improving, the appetite for invective on secondary issues such as trade and immigration would dissipate..." and "...But merely returning to the narrow economic strategies of past decades will not work, either. Conservatives love to emphasize the need for higher economic growth, but have often missed the importance of more widely distributed growth. Leaders should set their focus on a system with more opportunity in the middle and bottom of the economy..."
Thank you.
Thank you.
21
No, the invective will just become more covert if incomes increase. The bigots will not relent by feeding them cash. This is not about money; it is about hatred for the "Other". The US was quite prosperous post WW II and spawned Senator McCarthy.
No, Mr Brooks, your party is filled with proudly ignorant bigots, pure and simple. From Strom Thurmond to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, it has intentionally played to that bigotry and hateful anger. This we all know.
You keep deflecting, explaining. Own it. Proudly.
No, Mr Brooks, your party is filled with proudly ignorant bigots, pure and simple. From Strom Thurmond to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, it has intentionally played to that bigotry and hateful anger. This we all know.
You keep deflecting, explaining. Own it. Proudly.
I applaud the insight of this essay; however, the effort at a solution goes only part way. "Strong growth, evenly distributed" is not an objective that the executive suites, in particular, and big money, in general, will willingly accept. Moreover, the large number ordinary folk, who have had drilled into them a claimed moral depravity of socialism, will find any suggestion of even distribution to be unthinkable - even when consistent with the central creeds of the major religions; and even when it is clear that such change is essential to the long term global standing, economy and security of the USA.
For such change, we need a President and a Congressional majority committed to it. Unfortunately, we have a majority of Congress that is bought and paid for by special economic interests or by religious extremists or fakers.
We are not going to get fair Congressional commitment until those people, regardless of party, are voted out of office, and their replacements are convinced "old boy" and clubhouse politics will no longer be countenanced by the voters. Informed voters, exercising their right to vote, is the indispensable key.
As a side note, I have no problem with blatantly partisan talk show radio. I do think it is absurd to permit the sponsors of such shows to write off the costs of sponsorship as a business expense. The motivation of such sponsorship is, for the most part, pursuit of a political agenda. The cost of that agenda should not be exempt from taxes.
For such change, we need a President and a Congressional majority committed to it. Unfortunately, we have a majority of Congress that is bought and paid for by special economic interests or by religious extremists or fakers.
We are not going to get fair Congressional commitment until those people, regardless of party, are voted out of office, and their replacements are convinced "old boy" and clubhouse politics will no longer be countenanced by the voters. Informed voters, exercising their right to vote, is the indispensable key.
As a side note, I have no problem with blatantly partisan talk show radio. I do think it is absurd to permit the sponsors of such shows to write off the costs of sponsorship as a business expense. The motivation of such sponsorship is, for the most part, pursuit of a political agenda. The cost of that agenda should not be exempt from taxes.
81
I'm quite certain Mr. Brooks is not in favor of redistribution as you suggest -- I think he is intentionally leaving it vague, but his call to try to activate more economic growth among those "on the periphery" would largely be fostered through tax breaks for companies who invest in those populations (i.e. in low-income areas in the US), and, by the closing of the loopholes that allow companies to park their cash offshore (or to invest in labor overseas). I don't think he's talking about increasing the social safety net through higher taxes on the wealthy -- which is typically what people mean when they refer to "redistribution." Indeed, I think Mr. Brooks has pointedly avoided suggesting such a thing in this article.
I agree, especially, with the author's suggested investment in our school systems. It has to be an investment in public schools and in the communities they serve. Let's stop throwing public money away to private charters like what's happened here in Ohio.
127
I too share your dislike for publicly-funded charter aka private schools. It started not that long ago when the SCOTUS permitted public funds to be used for Catholic schools busing or some such cost. I haven't heard Secretary Clinton's position on this issue but guess I would need to hope that some researcher (like the one who released the transcripts of her Goldman talks) would unearthen it.
The upside to Trump (yes, there is an upside), is that Republicans own him. his voters are their base. They have to accept that decades of "cut taxes, serve the rich, wave guns and bibles" platforms are not going to assuage these voters. The GOP has to address economic inequality. They have to accept responsibility for lousy jobs, nonexistent benefits, and growing income stagnation. Paul Ryan knows how to speak to the wealthy, he's squirming to address the dispossessed that his policies have created. That's what Trump means for Republican leaders. Your chickens have come home to roost.
40
Republican don't own Trump, he owns them. When this many millions of Americans love Trump no matter what he is or what he says is evidence that the majority of the republican party voters are completely out-of-sync with republican leadership. The monster is us.
Amen brother!
Right analysis of the problem. Wrong prescription for how to cure it. Government spending--or lack thereof--is the real culprit in failing to get the economy back on track after the Great Recession. We should have been investing, investing, investing (aka spending), yes on education, but also infrastructure, job training, medical research, law enforcement, government services including the IRS, FDA, CDC and EPA, social safety net, daycare, healthcare insurance, and those things that help us form a more perfect union and facilitate the pursuit of happiness. Austerity in this country--belt-tightening or whatever else you call it in the name of "balancing the budget"--as in much of the world is the foolish medicine we have been taking for the last 8 years minus the anemic stimulus in the early years after the crash. We needed a real economic stimulus. Instead, we got a partisan political sedative.
54
:...we got a partisan political sedative." Concocted by the feckless RePubliThugliTalibanGelical Party.
I sure would like to see Arthur Brooks sharing a serious column on economic issues with Paul Krugman. I'd like to know the point up to which they agree, and I'd like to know where, and how, they diverge. The columns which feature Mr. Brooks and Gail Collins are excellent, and funny, but I'd love to see a lengthy feature where economists can talk with each other from different perspectives, without vilifying each other.
31
Stellar idea! May I second your motion?
1
Excellent idea! How about it, New York Times?
1
"It means rewriting tax and regulatory law to stop discouraging domestic investment and squelching job creation."
Conservatives are always screaming about regulation. We have the largest economy in the entire world, and we have a healthy dose of regulations to keep our workers safe, environment clean, and economy fair. So, uh, what exactly is wrong with that again?
Greed, unpatriotic tax code abuses. the corporate cronyism you mentioned, the sham that is Wall Street marketing, the government/business revolving door, the old boys network, the money-driven political system, lack of investment in schools in poorer districts...all of these things are what drive income disparity.
Conservatives are always screaming about regulation. We have the largest economy in the entire world, and we have a healthy dose of regulations to keep our workers safe, environment clean, and economy fair. So, uh, what exactly is wrong with that again?
Greed, unpatriotic tax code abuses. the corporate cronyism you mentioned, the sham that is Wall Street marketing, the government/business revolving door, the old boys network, the money-driven political system, lack of investment in schools in poorer districts...all of these things are what drive income disparity.
491
Would love to ask the Republican elite exactly which ONE of the major federal statutory regulations/departments is so burdensome and business unfriendly that it should be eliminated or be seriously rewritten. The financial industries would call for the elimination of the Fed, the SEC and the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the oil. gas and coal industries would repeal the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, Big Pharma and corporate farmers would rid us of the FDA and the Ag Department, the Internet Goliaths would eliminate net neutrality, and the NRA/gunmaker cabal would end any and all limitations on gun ownership. And, of course, all of them would rewrite the tax code so that it is "fairer" (to them).
1
Very true.
Contrary to this op-ed, the problem is much more than illegal immigration. It's ***too much*** immigration. Since the millennium, there are an additional 9.3 million jobs, an additional 18 million immigrants, and an additional 16.5 million working age Americans.
The National Academy of Sciences study that was just published shows that "Immigration is primarily a redistributive policy, transferring income from workers to owners of capital and from taxpayers to low-income immigrant families."
http://cis.org/NAS-Study-Workers-and-Taxpayers-Lose-Businesses-Benefit
The National Academy of Sciences study that was just published shows that "Immigration is primarily a redistributive policy, transferring income from workers to owners of capital and from taxpayers to low-income immigrant families."
http://cis.org/NAS-Study-Workers-and-Taxpayers-Lose-Businesses-Benefit
12
Not bad for a conservative. Keep working on the free enterprise part, though. You really have to cut corporate welfare and tax loopholes to make anything remotely fair about it. Campaign reform would be another good step. And how about bringing back truly progressive taxation? You know, the kind that builds societies instead of robbing future generations?
25
What??? Economic meltdown of the last eight years? You are not aware of the state we were in eight years ago? You must think your readers are really, really stupid.
87
There is so much that can be done about our problems, but only if those who govern actually want to do so. That, in a nutshell, has been our problem--a congress, and state governments, filled with nihilist ideologues, leading to paralysis and an inability to confront even the most trivially tractable problems facing our nation. Blocking tax reform, blocking judicial appointments, stripping funding from education and social services, ignoring all but the most petty political issues. Getting rid of the nihilists will allow everyone else to get back to the business of improving things. I, for one, cannot wait.
398
G-d may have saved the United States of America tonight.
The question now is whether He will be willing to come back and do the job again.
The question now is whether He will be willing to come back and do the job again.
7
When the president of the American Enterprise Institute is bemoaning the horror of uneven growth, you know you're being conned.
32
Mr. Brooks seems to believe that populism has only economic causes or that the social causes behind feelings of displacement and alienation ultimately have economic roots. I'm not so sure. I think changes in national demography that give rise to a sense of encirclement and possible ethnic extinction are a far more powerful factor in the current populism's rise than economics. Who cares if you have more money if none of your neighbors look and speak like you anymore? And how long will you get to keep that money if "those people" start voting entitlement programs for themselves at your expense at the ballot box?
50
And just to do other Americans look like? And why do you think that those two might look different are people who need to be subsidized? I find you or comments to be xenophobic and offensive to our American values.
1
Your last sentence gets you right back to the economic issues. People secure financially see much less threat from "those people."
1
Arthur sees a pattern that Trump fits rooted in predictable populist responses to economic meltdowns that can be addressed by better distributing growth. I see it somewhat differently.
Yes, “bad public policy” – higher taxes and severely higher regulation – will slow recovery and allow working- and middle-class resentments to build to the point where people seek seismic change; and policies that better distribute the benefits of renewed growth would moderate such motivations. But that assumes that better-distributed growth still is possible under our current political and economic frameworks.
I don’t know how many broad-based recoveries we still have in us.
Automation is ravaging whole occupations, incrementally obsolescing human labor. How can we better distribute economic growth with more and more people unable to find work? We can tax more heavily to provide more benefits, but that’s self-defeating because dramatically higher taxes will attack economic recovery by depressing the incentives to innovation on which a recovery depends. 5% of the population trying to support 95% won’t come tomorrow, but we can begin to see it happening. If we allow that to occur, we will create a gray, subsistence-level world.
We need to tune our frameworks to their most efficient, to give us as much time as possible to solve this unique historical problem. But the turn to Trump, for many, may be a desperate reaction to a dawning recognition that we’re in very serious trouble.
Yes, “bad public policy” – higher taxes and severely higher regulation – will slow recovery and allow working- and middle-class resentments to build to the point where people seek seismic change; and policies that better distribute the benefits of renewed growth would moderate such motivations. But that assumes that better-distributed growth still is possible under our current political and economic frameworks.
I don’t know how many broad-based recoveries we still have in us.
Automation is ravaging whole occupations, incrementally obsolescing human labor. How can we better distribute economic growth with more and more people unable to find work? We can tax more heavily to provide more benefits, but that’s self-defeating because dramatically higher taxes will attack economic recovery by depressing the incentives to innovation on which a recovery depends. 5% of the population trying to support 95% won’t come tomorrow, but we can begin to see it happening. If we allow that to occur, we will create a gray, subsistence-level world.
We need to tune our frameworks to their most efficient, to give us as much time as possible to solve this unique historical problem. But the turn to Trump, for many, may be a desperate reaction to a dawning recognition that we’re in very serious trouble.
1
The comments closed on a previous column where Richard Luettgen wrote: "Or the fact that after a president saw fit to cut our military dramatically using an Asian “pivot” as pretext, China’s destabilizing muscle-stretching actually increased substantially".
I bring it up to point out the dangers of confusing correlation with causation. The fact is that in dollar terms the Chinese economy grew from $4.6 trillion in 2008 to $11 trillion in 2015 -- in PPP terms it is even more impressive -- and no American President, short of starting World War 3 and nuking China had it in their power to keep the rapidly growing China from muscle-stretching.
I bring it up to point out the dangers of confusing correlation with causation. The fact is that in dollar terms the Chinese economy grew from $4.6 trillion in 2008 to $11 trillion in 2015 -- in PPP terms it is even more impressive -- and no American President, short of starting World War 3 and nuking China had it in their power to keep the rapidly growing China from muscle-stretching.
14
Arun:
Perhaps. But, then, no other president in our history has had so many excuses offered for what he couldn't help.
Perhaps. But, then, no other president in our history has had so many excuses offered for what he couldn't help.
1
Richard:
That's not a credible response to Arun. It's a pivot from something you have no answer for to something simple minded that fits on a bumper sticker. Indeed, it has nothing to do with Arun's point. You are blinded by your own condescension.
That's not a credible response to Arun. It's a pivot from something you have no answer for to something simple minded that fits on a bumper sticker. Indeed, it has nothing to do with Arun's point. You are blinded by your own condescension.
4
Trump put at risk the conservatives' ability to fool some of the people all of the time.
100
We gave the job creators many billions in tax breaks so they would invest and create jobs. Now they want some more tax breaks, but we never find out what they did with the billions they already got and how many jobs were created. Since giving tax breaks to job creators is not a new strategy, it would make sense to find out how it worked when we tried it. But advocates of further tax cuts never tell us.
145
If growth is unevenly shared, then it will lead to income redistribution whether it is weak or strong. Since we have had unevenly shared growth for quite a while, we have seen substantial income redistribution from everyone else to the rich and the very rich. The reversal of this redistribution is called redistribution rather than restoration back from a redistribution for reasons of propaganda.
More opportunity must mean that there will be a greater percentage of jobs or gigs or projects that pay a living wage rather than a bare living wage. If more opportunity means that every young person is going to be equipped to move up, it just makes the competition for decent jobs worse and makes people overqualified and frustrated, and turns into a sick joke.
Because of climate change, our usual form of high economic growth may endanger our future. If high growth is dangerous, then we will have to tackle distribution. Our default way of distributing growth is free enterprise, competition for the fruits of growth, which occurs between sectors of the economy. Right now our medical and financial sectors are doing well, as are the rich. They have discovered how to compete and win the lion's share of growth; they are some of the wealthy and intrenched interests that get the special treatment conservative reformers oppose. These interests also fund the American Enterprise Institute in its belief that we get evenly distributed growth only by not throwing away free enterprise.
More opportunity must mean that there will be a greater percentage of jobs or gigs or projects that pay a living wage rather than a bare living wage. If more opportunity means that every young person is going to be equipped to move up, it just makes the competition for decent jobs worse and makes people overqualified and frustrated, and turns into a sick joke.
Because of climate change, our usual form of high economic growth may endanger our future. If high growth is dangerous, then we will have to tackle distribution. Our default way of distributing growth is free enterprise, competition for the fruits of growth, which occurs between sectors of the economy. Right now our medical and financial sectors are doing well, as are the rich. They have discovered how to compete and win the lion's share of growth; they are some of the wealthy and intrenched interests that get the special treatment conservative reformers oppose. These interests also fund the American Enterprise Institute in its belief that we get evenly distributed growth only by not throwing away free enterprise.
25
"Strong growth, evenly distributed, will do the trick."
History teaches that this is better delivered not by conservative reformers but by progressive ones. Why should we expect anything different this time?
History teaches that this is better delivered not by conservative reformers but by progressive ones. Why should we expect anything different this time?
420
Conservatives haven't"missed the importance of more widely distributed growth (wealth)". They just don't want to do it. In 1970 the CEO:worker pay ratio in Japan and Germany was 20:1;in the US it was 40:1.Scandalous!Today it is 350:1.
That did not happen by accident. It was done purposefully, carefully and it was a lot of work to pull off. It is not "natural". That's how a worm like Paul Ryan ends up supporting a maniac like Donald Trump. Anything for one more tax cut for the 1%, including fascism. Conservatives know what they need to do-- share the wealth. But they won't.
ps They're not really "conservative" in the sense of valuing traditional relationships, practices, and institutions. They are greedy parasites who will destroy anything and anyone to get "more", and for whom loyalty and sacrifice are foreign, unrecognized concepts. Certainly not something to be honored. "Honor": Another archaic term unlikely to be found in the SAT vocabulary section.
That did not happen by accident. It was done purposefully, carefully and it was a lot of work to pull off. It is not "natural". That's how a worm like Paul Ryan ends up supporting a maniac like Donald Trump. Anything for one more tax cut for the 1%, including fascism. Conservatives know what they need to do-- share the wealth. But they won't.
ps They're not really "conservative" in the sense of valuing traditional relationships, practices, and institutions. They are greedy parasites who will destroy anything and anyone to get "more", and for whom loyalty and sacrifice are foreign, unrecognized concepts. Certainly not something to be honored. "Honor": Another archaic term unlikely to be found in the SAT vocabulary section.
2
U.S History demonstrates that the GOP enhances inequality, not to mention hatred.
Unless the GOP adopts its "1956 Republican Platform": http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838
No one has suggested 'throwing away free enterprise', but rather regulating the psychopathic, pornographic greed personified by 350:1 CEO:worker pay ratios championed by the American Enterprise Institute For Advanced Greed you preside at, Arthur.
There's a difference between free enterprise and America's vulture capitalist parasites looking for fresh bodies to chew on and fresh blood to drink for profit.
The Republican Party has championed sadistic economic torture of the American people for decades in homage to the God of Mammon.
Here's the deal, Brooks - sit up and pay attention:
Greed Over People built today's American civil unrest and Trumpian Frankenstein through decades of upward redistribution.
The richest 62 billionaires now own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population (i.e. 3.7 BILLION people)
In 2010, the 388 richest people owned the same wealth as the poorest 50%...now it's down to just 62 Richie Rich's.
We're headed in the WRONG direction because of massive upward redistribution facilitated by slave wages, underfunded education systems, Welfare Queen tax dodging codes for the obscenely wealthy, and a general Robber Baron disregard for humanity.
We got to this spot because greedy, rich parasites enjoy organ harvesting the common good and general population for sadistic profit.
The time has now come to return the favor and organ harvest and TAX the rich for the common good.
We understand history.
Do you understand humanity, Mr. Brooks ?
There's a difference between free enterprise and America's vulture capitalist parasites looking for fresh bodies to chew on and fresh blood to drink for profit.
The Republican Party has championed sadistic economic torture of the American people for decades in homage to the God of Mammon.
Here's the deal, Brooks - sit up and pay attention:
Greed Over People built today's American civil unrest and Trumpian Frankenstein through decades of upward redistribution.
The richest 62 billionaires now own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population (i.e. 3.7 BILLION people)
In 2010, the 388 richest people owned the same wealth as the poorest 50%...now it's down to just 62 Richie Rich's.
We're headed in the WRONG direction because of massive upward redistribution facilitated by slave wages, underfunded education systems, Welfare Queen tax dodging codes for the obscenely wealthy, and a general Robber Baron disregard for humanity.
We got to this spot because greedy, rich parasites enjoy organ harvesting the common good and general population for sadistic profit.
The time has now come to return the favor and organ harvest and TAX the rich for the common good.
We understand history.
Do you understand humanity, Mr. Brooks ?
651
I'm with you, 100%. But how do we reverse the trend when the ultra wealthy are the ones who control the purse-strings of both parties? Their lobbyists have unbridled access to lawmakers. They either write the laws, or if the laws don't favor them, they see to it that those laws never see the light of day.
It breaks my heart that we finally had a potential candidate who raised all of his campaign money is small donations, but was dispensed by those in power because the nominating process had predetermined the outcome. No one could predict the results of the general election if the more left-leaning candidate were on the ticket, but I fear it was our last chance to right the wrongs, to end the ability of the few to buy the election, from now until the end.
It breaks my heart that we finally had a potential candidate who raised all of his campaign money is small donations, but was dispensed by those in power because the nominating process had predetermined the outcome. No one could predict the results of the general election if the more left-leaning candidate were on the ticket, but I fear it was our last chance to right the wrongs, to end the ability of the few to buy the election, from now until the end.
4
Please understand that the poorest 50% of humanity ALL - every single one of them - live outside the US. The poorest 5% of Americans actually fall in approximately the highest earning quarter of the world's population, and the majority of Americans rank in the top 20% or higher. If the redistribution you're advocating were to occur without reference to borders, not a single American would receive a share, and the majority of us would have to give up some of what we already have.
2
Thank you! You said it all and very well.
1
Arthur, the problem with this recovery was that President Obama put all his eggs into the healthcare reform basket; and, unfortunately, the visuals and messaging surrounding that imperfect reform were so botched that he ended up surrendering the House of Representatives after 2 short years, and with it his ability to do anything meaningful later on the economic front.
After January 2011, only the Fed was capable of acting in support of a continued recovery, with the Republicans in the House and Senate instead intent on doing everything in their power to sabotage it, in the hope making Obama a one-term President, and later, after he won reelection, a failed one.
The crisis that Obama faced in 2008 was the worst since the Great Depression - and the recovery from that crisis was, due to an over-reliance on the Fed, one of the most uneven.
I'm gratified that you're admitting that "the narrow economic strategies of past decades will not work", because they haven't worked - and are responsible for almost everything bad that has happened to this country since Bill Clinton left the White House.
We've tried a combination of trickle-down and Southern Strategy now for some 36 years, and the result has been the rise of Drumpf's know-nothing populism. And yet attention must be paid to plight of those Americans who have become so enthralled by conservative misinformation that they refuse to vote for candidates eager to authentically represent their economic interests.
After January 2011, only the Fed was capable of acting in support of a continued recovery, with the Republicans in the House and Senate instead intent on doing everything in their power to sabotage it, in the hope making Obama a one-term President, and later, after he won reelection, a failed one.
The crisis that Obama faced in 2008 was the worst since the Great Depression - and the recovery from that crisis was, due to an over-reliance on the Fed, one of the most uneven.
I'm gratified that you're admitting that "the narrow economic strategies of past decades will not work", because they haven't worked - and are responsible for almost everything bad that has happened to this country since Bill Clinton left the White House.
We've tried a combination of trickle-down and Southern Strategy now for some 36 years, and the result has been the rise of Drumpf's know-nothing populism. And yet attention must be paid to plight of those Americans who have become so enthralled by conservative misinformation that they refuse to vote for candidates eager to authentically represent their economic interests.
288
Huh? Obama's fault because he focused on health care first? (premiums rising 10-12% yearly and 750,000-1,000,000 people losing their insurance yearly). Health care reform was something we could plan on, not the late term collapse of the economy. Nor did you list the Republican obstruction to make him a one term President? Note instead the failure of the stupid party to accept that a recovery might take 8 years and require an activist government to reduce its pain?
Mr. Brooks is adept at avoiding responsibility and avoiding pointing out where the responsibility lies. He doesn't need more help from you.
Mr. Brooks is adept at avoiding responsibility and avoiding pointing out where the responsibility lies. He doesn't need more help from you.
2
The only "split" that conservatives feel regarding Donald Trump is between those who like his blatant, amoral and vulgar ignorance and those who wished he'd be less obvious about it.
The G.O.P. displayed its true colors during the shameful Republican nomination process. The candidates were either liars, religious fundamentalists, or people who had risen to fame for shutting down the government or for refusing to fund women's clinics. Their only accomplishments revolved around what they prevented, impeded, destroyed or denied. Trump's absurd plan to build a wall probably seemed refreshing by comparison.
But at the heart of the G.O.P.'s failure is the idea that when free enterprise fails, we should double down on free enterprise. Conservatives insist that we must pay tithes to phantom job creators, weaken regulations that protect consumers, give tax breaks to the Trumps of the world, and pretend that the people who created our egregious income inequality can be trusted to evenly distribute anything to the periphery of society.
We might want to try restricting the gerrymandering that returns political hacks to Congress, striking down Citizens United, ensuring that the truly entitled get their entitlements, and stop denying the reality of science, gay people and women's rights. Let's shut up about religion and start talking about rebuilding our infrastructure.
A country built on these principles would never have to fear a takeover by an ignorant buffoon.
The G.O.P. displayed its true colors during the shameful Republican nomination process. The candidates were either liars, religious fundamentalists, or people who had risen to fame for shutting down the government or for refusing to fund women's clinics. Their only accomplishments revolved around what they prevented, impeded, destroyed or denied. Trump's absurd plan to build a wall probably seemed refreshing by comparison.
But at the heart of the G.O.P.'s failure is the idea that when free enterprise fails, we should double down on free enterprise. Conservatives insist that we must pay tithes to phantom job creators, weaken regulations that protect consumers, give tax breaks to the Trumps of the world, and pretend that the people who created our egregious income inequality can be trusted to evenly distribute anything to the periphery of society.
We might want to try restricting the gerrymandering that returns political hacks to Congress, striking down Citizens United, ensuring that the truly entitled get their entitlements, and stop denying the reality of science, gay people and women's rights. Let's shut up about religion and start talking about rebuilding our infrastructure.
A country built on these principles would never have to fear a takeover by an ignorant buffoon.
752
I thought I was hallucinating. Albert Brooks talking about restoring equal opportunity, and the perils of an unequal recovery? Has he had an epiphany? As usual, gemli nails the fundamentals.
3
gemli, I like what you have to say. If you're ever in Philadelphia, please look me up. Let's have dinner and talk politics!
2