Breaking up large successful American tech companies is a great way to help countries like China. Wealth taxes are divisive and easily repealed. People seeking to get ahead in their own merit don't claim false minority status. Septigenarian Senators with little talk record of accomplishment and zero experience managing people or large institutions make bad executives. Hoover and Carter were both detail oriented policy wonks. Enough said.
21
Her candidacy was dead on arrival, these articles are simple, self serving excercises.
13
A wealth tax is "an idea whose time has come".
Depending on how specifics, it could change the class structure and DESTROY THE RICH.
This would be a GOOD THING.
3
@Joe Sneed
Destroying the rich is not a good idea. Having the rich pay their fair share is. See the Laffer curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) for what works and what doesn’t; we had a 91% marginal tax rate on “the rich” under President Dwight David Eisenhower—we were able to build the Interstate Highway System, and later, under President Kennedy, establish a space program and send a man to the moon. The middle class did well and I don’t remember hearing the rich complain.
It all began to go wrong with Reagan.
2
I'm grateful for this opinion piece. Warren has long struck me, on merely a gut level, as somewhat prissy, out of touch, and unrealistic--or, more accurately, un-relatable. In all candor, I'm pretty sure this reflects my own deeply engrained sexism (male chauvinism); if she were a man, I'd probably have been open to her, and more impressed by her. (Not something I'm proud of. How stupid can you get?!) By opening me to the value of Warren's ideas, this piece has opened me to my own idiotic prejudices, and to her. We need more pieces that truly educate us--about the issues and about ourselves. Thanks.
154
Reminders for inexperienced Democratic voters:
No "independent" ever wishes you well.
Nobody who describes any female candidate as "shrill" ever wishes you well.
Nobody who dismisses childhood education but lauds Social Security ever wishes you well.
Nobody who goes out of his way to denigrate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley or Maxine Waters ever wishes you well.
And most important: nobody who brags about being a "lifelong Democrat" and then savages "leftists" & "socialists," and threatens to vote Republican ever wishes you well.
65
The wealth tax was tried and abandoned in some Western European countries. Why? Do some real work NYTs and inform us.
24
Boy, it's tough to get behind a guy who parrots the garbage economics of Thomas Piketty and favors an unconstitutional wealth tax as a funding mechanism. Good luck getting that constitutional amendment through.
The general idea--a focus on better outcomes, rather than taking bad outcomes for granted and then making it better through redistributive policies, is a nice one. But these ideas won't cut it.
We have a vibrant middle class as an indispensable part of our economy. They work day and night, and they are thriving. Our problem is that they tend not to live in the United States--they are overseas, kept out by our stupid immigration laws. We need more immigrants to lift us from the middle, and bottom.
8
Warren's changes are far too sweeping. She throws the baby out with the bath water. I agree that the super rich need to be taxed at a higher rate after 50 million, but that needs to be thought through. Maybe just taking away all of their loopholes, like they have done to the meddle class, would solve the problem without other changes. Look how much taking way a few tax breaks have impacted middle class families. Can you imagine what it would do to the rich?? My biggest problem was her putting all large tech companies in one basket. Facebook is not the same as Microsoft which is not the same as Apple which is not the same as Intel. And what does she mean by break them up? What would be the gain of such a huge wrench in our tech industry? I don't think she has a clue what she is talking about. These are the types of half baked ideas that make progressives look.....half baked. We need someone with more well thought out ideas that make sense. She needs a more palatable message.
14
Another Democrat candidate with big ideas for Capitalism and our society is Andrew Yang: https://www.yang2020.com/.
I was dismissive of his idea of Universal Basic Income until I hear him talk through it, step by step. It has substance and is not just rhetorics. He has the disadvantage of being a virtual unknown. But it would be a shame that brilliant ideas are buried as a result. Do yourself a favor and check him out!
20
She is a comfortably wealthy, very liberal socialist (and is such because of the former, so she can shoot her mouth off). Lots of scary people like her in history.
She will eventually machinate to take your money, my money, and my son's money in order to sprinkle it on other people like fairy dust.
But not, I'm pretty sure, HER money! I'm pretty confident she's got a lot of gelt secreted away which is very protected, totally unreachable, and not even "findable".
She will be just like Ted Kennedy in this regard, but only worse (something truly hard to imagine!). I can recall no peeps from him about sharing some of his family's fortune with others. Same with her.
11
Well, I sure hope she can fix the economy without taxing us further! I am in Trump tax shock! My taxes increased 3 fold by the Trump tax deduction! What a smoke and mirrors game the perpetual liar perpetrated on us! Shame on him! I want a President who will restore all the deductions on us, lower middle class teachers and university Profs!
14
"She [Warren] favors not only a tougher approach to future mergers, as many Democrats do, but also a breakup of Facebook and other tech companies that have come to resemble monopolies."
fb is so big that ... it allowed live-streaming of Capital Murder -- MASS Capital murder. Committed with weapons of mass destruction.
And wasn't even aware of it....
Tell us, Mr. Zuckerberg, if you cannot police your own company, who should?
26
Here's on old white guy who thinks Warren is the cat's meow. Well, I like her intelligence. And I like the side she's on - ours, the 99%.
But, really, can a diminutive women win, when all the buffoons, who pay no intelligent attention, come out of the woodwork and thrill to their red-white-and blue, all-American patriotism and vote their total ignorance? Probably not.
For that you need tall, arm waving, Beto blazing with masculine energy.
14
Socialism! Socialism!!
And we all know it is really about those e-mails and Benghazi! Benhazi!!
3
Thank you for a very informative article and the opportunity to comment.
This is what it is all about, and Warren has her finger on it and the mind to match. I would voter for her in a heartbeat because she understands what she is talking about in detail and can explain it to others. Regardless of whether she is nominated for the Presidency or not, she belongs in government, and her ideas need to be implemented. These need to be part of the Democratic Platform.
A small point but workers on the board makes sense. It is what the Shakers did and what is done in Europe. If capitalism is to be controlled, the worker needs to be part of the decision making.
On a more realistic plain, intermediate technology and the break up of monopolies are an imperative. If we want to have jobs, there has to be work that needs to be done, and we cannot have one organization farming the people for data and providing it to "whomever." Even I do not know what I want, why should you know better? It is a process here that is basically generic and frankly can be totally avoided by just empowering people with the skills to find what they need. I would do away with Facebook, quite honestly. It's only for those seeking attention, and they may be distorting the picture.
Being competitive on a global level is a false paradigm. It is a totally corporate fixation and drive for unbridled profit, but it does not serve the people or the country. Frankly, it is at the expense of the people and the country.
19
I think the headline is spot on: capitalism needs Elizabeth Warren. I wish she would do more positioning of her policy proposals along capotaliatic lines as well. Instead she reverts always to the “system is rigged against us” devolving into an us vs them mantra. Her same policy proposals work on the GOP side of the ledger too: Increased new business formation, more competition and greater opportunity.
11
Notice how rarely, if ever, Warren employs the politically royal “ me.” How she always seems focused on the issues, the policies, and not (like Beto) why she is drawn to run for the presidency, or why she would make such a great president (like most of the others).
My kind of politician.
42
If it's not broke don't try and fix it.
3
I see piece after piece in the NYT lauding Warren's acumen, then bending over backwards to disavow any semblance of support for her candidacy. Can't we give unalloyed credit where credit is due? Yes, it's early days, but I fear the press is so hungry for its "charisma narrative" that it's already decided who it will or will not take seriously.
30
If she makes it to next March, I'll be surprised.
6
Capitalism, militarism and racism has made America first in money, arms and prisoners.
The only thing that can fix that is humble humane empathy for each and every member of the one and only human race.
Pride is the deadliest of sins. And the love of money is the root of all evil.
7
We, Democrats, are the party of the right ideas and the wrong people. What made us think a Prince of a black man who ran a scandal-free administration would be accepted by a white-dominated society? What made us think a male-dominated society would elect a highly qualified woman to be president? What makes us think a "Mexican Border Jumping Bean" or an irritating female Senator can be elected president?
4
But can she trounce trump? Maybe, but that is the sole determining factor regarding final democratic candidate.
3
Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren in 2020!
7
@Philip Cafaro
Then watch the economy collapse.
6
Isn't it "Elizabeth Warren wants to tame Capitalism?
2
I've read the article. I've thought about it all. Even though I am not sure she has the steady hand to lead this country forward with our many resurgent opponents, I am starting to lean towards her. I like what she says. I am somewhat repulsed by Beto O'Rourke's story line so far. Biden is an idiot in my book, although a good guy. The rest of the pack has no
redeeming features whatsoever - yet - except that they want to get rid of trump. Capitalism without restraints is no better than communism. Socialism is better than both. But Capitalism with the proper restraints applied to it can be the best way forward. But bearing in mind CLIMATE CHANGE, how much forward can there be without drastic changes to our society? Its very complicated right now, and I don't think the american public has enough good, intelligent people to do the right thing. We'll probably end up with trump again. But I for one will vote my conscience.
5
“ The government will then try to improve things through income taxes and benefits programs.”
Too many people will focus on the freebie part and not accept any personal responsibility.
Ah for JFK...”Ask not what your country can do for you.....”
1
As interesting as this commentary is (link below), it fails to take into consideration the most basic of points made when it comes to a change in economic policy: what is the theory behind the policies?
To understand what I am referring to, see the work of economist Paul Collier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Collier
specifically his most recent book The Future of Capitalism
https://www.amazon.com/Future-Capitalism-Facing-New-Anxieties/dp/0062748653
As MIT professor Andrew Lo
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/andrew-w-lo
told me in an interview that I did with him several years ago, “It takes a theory to beat a theory”.
Without a theory to replace the current theory in practice, neoliberalism, everything else is simply rejiggering the deck chairs on the economic Titanic. (We all know how that turned out.)
1
Warren has precisely the kind of pragmatic, detailed, significanftfix lacking in the non-platforms of the starry-eyed progressives. Which means that inevitably many of her ideas will be coopted into other platforms, probably to elect some alpha male like Beto O'Rourke. So it goes.
1
Here's another big idea: ACCOUNTABILITY.
I for one, am sick and tired of political thieves, politicians who entered government under the false pretense of serving the nation and The People, only to fill their pockets and serve their wealthy donor-owners.
I want the Democratic president, House and Senate to investigate, indict and imprison the thieves and knaves currently controlling our country and spitting on the Constitution.
4
My solution is to push the economy to a Controlled Captiallistic System which includes:
1. Revert income tax rates to 1968 levels.
2. Reverse Citizens United and not allow gerrymandering and
3. Break up monopolies and oligopolies.
http://lstrn.us/2FfDFKW
5
I agree with many of Senator Warren's ideas but I don't think she can be elected.
I don't think Bernie can be elected either.
Both should remain in the Senate [and HRC who I think still hopes to get the nomination should remain in Chappaqua] and put forth their progressive agenda.
Warren as head of Senate finance committee.
Unfair as it may be the president is elected by the ELECTORAL vote and not the POPULAR vote.
HRC lost rural America and the industrial state like Mich, Ohio, Pa Wisc.
Whether or not the reasons HRC lost were male chauvinism [doubtful because 62% of white non college women voted for Trump or because HRC talked down to rural America or because she had no program to help displaced workers regain lost economic status is irrelevant.
These people VOTE and rightly or wrongly many will not vote for a progressive like Warren or Sanders.
Many of the announced Dem candidates know they have zero chance for the nomination but are hoping for the VP slot.
We need a liberal with more experience than many of these candidates have without the baggage that Warren and Bernie have.
Even if the DEMS retake presidency and Senate in 2020 they will not have the 60 vote super majority needed to break a filibuster unless they invoke a nuclear option to abolish that filibuster rule.
To get legislation passed we need someone with LBJ's legislative skills .
His Vietnam War was a disaster but that is a separate matter.
1
Count me in! Elizabeth Warren is indeed the candidate with ideas that matter. Trouble is I am not sure my fellow Democrats and the American electorate won't fall for the sound bite and glamour candidate yet again. We need to keep reminding ourselves that Ms. Warren was fighting for average Americans for a long time before her foray into politics.
11
@Albert Petersen
Warren has been an excellent Senator. She could make a difference in many capacities.
3
Warren deserves a place at the table in a New Democratic administration. She may not be electable, but she could be a Cabinet official, or lead the Council of economic advisors. I see her as an excellent policy person, more than a President.
3
The biggest reasons to be hopeful about Warrens's larger agenda are:
1. As the author , notes, it is popular.
However, more importantly:
2. She is the only candidate with the intelligence, and courage, to articulate an operational plan to restore the rule of law, the economic changes need to create an economy that is consistent with, not opposed to, our governing document, the US
Constitution.
The question on the ballot: Can she tap into the best components of human nature to free up the energy to motivate us to put an end to the dominance of of the most destructive aspect of human nature. Most worrisome, do Americans in 2020 have the wisdom, and toughness, that the Americans in the last half of the 1700s had, when they created a resilient, wise governance structure? The answer lies within. Each of us.
11
Once again, this overthinking the problem based upon a few economists studies. Corporations used to pay 37% in taxes, they now average 9%. Do you think the Federal budget misses that 26%? I sure do. We have also allowed corporations to renege on their promise of paying for health care and defined benefits because they say it's too expensive. Well, of course they'd say that when CEO bonuses are tied to the bottom line. In short, corporations need to pay rates much closer to their old ones than that of today. You can do it either by increasing their rates, or a point of sales tax, like a VAT. Tweaking individual rates up some will help, but if you go too far, which is usually over 45%, don't think that wealthy people won't be as good as avoiding increased taxes as corporations. After all some of those people run them. Bolder thinking is green energy jobs, carbon credits, subsidized housing, job training, education and health care (and less military). All of those will promote growth. Redistribution alone is never the answer - ask Denmark. You could take all of the 1%ers money and still not meaningfully move the needle significantly.
3
American politics in general have been dragged so far to the right that the Democrats who believe in the mythical middle-of-the-road constituency have shifted steadily to the right to try to sweep up the former Republicans left behind. When the entire system has become so much more rightist, starting with Reagan, even moderate Democrats look like leftists to the reactionary Republicans & the establishment Democrats who, themselves, have moved to the center & center-right in pursuit of the "moderates." The Democratic grassroots are far more progressive than the Pelosi-generation establishment. The entire country, when polled on specific policies, are far more progressive than the so-called moderate Democrats. If you look at the freshman class of Democratic Representatives, they are much more in tune with the old Democratic ideals & policies that built the great middle class & secure working class engineered by FDR, JFK, LBJ & other traditional Democrats. Today, the establishment Democrats are basically the new generation of Rockefeller Republicans, trying to placate the phantom middle & trusting they can ignore the grassroots and expect them to vote Democratic (holding their noses) as the lesser of two evils.
2
I have serious doubts about her electability, but this is by a mile the best argument for Elizabeth Warren that I’ve seen.
Nice.
17
Agreed. I so wish she had never gone off on the Cherokee tangent and just emphasized her humble upbringing, being a victim of pregnancy discrimination, and rising from a public law school education to Harvard. These are things to which so many women like me can relate.
9
I do think one of the greatest problems facing us is the growing inequality and that we are desperate for a new form of capitalism that rewards all stakeholders not just investors. And I think Warren has presented the most interesting possible fixes but i feel she is more on the technical side and not on the political side to actually be able to change the system. The 2020 election is certainly likely to be one of the most important since the end of WW II and the Democrats have to make a very significant choice in the next year or two.
4
@Duncan capitalism that rewards those who don’t take risk and invest is called communism. It’s never worked
2
I've listened to the Candidates speak and she is the only one with proposals. The only thing which should be relevant is candidates policy and estimates of their ability to enact them. Our system would be much better if it was like parts of Switzerland, direct democracy. While we have national elections the public rarely gets what it wants. Serious reform of our system, not ancestor worship of the founders is what is called for.
4
Essentially we need a leader who understands that while it is a good thing that our citizens seek enlightenment and equity in their existence as Americans, most humans on the planet view that quest as a luxury.
The next phase of American leadership must address both local and global injustice. That is the only hope we have of healing the wounds we opened as a result of electing Donald Trump.
The American oligarchy cannot be embraced as the model for our country in the future.
4
It is encouraging to see readers show enthusiasm for candidates who actually want to build a society that is a boon to all. This energy must now be harnessed to getting whichever candidate favored elected and another major change that ensure this is truly a democracy. Voting on all government levels in super majority numbers. Unless this comes to pass, that energy becomes hot air.
5
In the Utopian economy envisioned workers would run the the businesses, social Justice would be the cause, unemployment would be blamed on the Privileged and the “ people like us crowd” would all tell us little people how much better we are now that we have them to tell us.
2
You forgot the part where’d we’d all actually know stuff, think about stuff, and put a little more on the table than cold rehashes of Hannity rants.
3
You have finally said it:
"Politics is not an expertise competition. The nominee should be, and most likely will be, the candidate who best inspires voters."
Maybe, just maybe, your statement will become contagious and spread to your colleagues.
3
If Elizabeth Warren doesn't make it thru the primaries, and if the Democrats win in 2020, she certainly should be consider for the Secretary of Treasury post.
14
NOT REALLY BOLD THINKING
Bringing American healthcare costs down to the level of France, for example, would free up about 8% of GDP for programs like universal pre-school child care.
Simply eliminating caps on Medicare and Social Security taxes would raise money without any new tax, and be almost universally acceptable.
A carbon tax phased in over 10 years would encourage huge job-creating investments immediately well before the tax would bite.
A wealth tax, however, would be difficult to calculate and capture without wealth fleeing from the US the way it has fled from China and Russia. Until Christine Lagarde's international agreement on taxes can be achieved, this is much less practical than the other proposals.
At www.Constitutionals.org is a more complete list of policy changes to save capitalism -- by turning it into HUMAN CAPITAL-ISM.
12
It's good to hear a writer mention that FDR saved capitalism with his direct attack on capitalists. Notice that FDR did not attack capitalism as an economic system, but rather the individuals who took it to an extreme. "For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness." And the more famous, "We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred." (Both while running for reelection in 1936, a vote he won with 60.8% of the popular vote and 98.5% of the Electoral Vote.) FDR recognized the two extremes that were presented to the 99% if they abandoned capitalism, and fought to prevent either from gaining too great a foothold. There are times when I ask myself if Pres. Trump and his wealthy cronies aren't actually Marxists. They act exactly as Marx predicted they would. Pres. Trump and those who support him seem to think that they will never be blamed if the nation truly goes down the tubes.
8
Thanks for this excellent article about a woman whose background in many ways is reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln. Like the overwhelming issue of slavery in Lincoln’s day, today we we are faced with the issue of a capitalist economy which is threatened by loss of the middle class and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few. Ms Warren seems to have a game plan and the intellect ability to deal with this problem. The question is whether greed in America and the concentrated political power in the hands of the wealthy will allow for somebody like Ms Warren to gain any political traction. America prefers performer types like Trump and Beto and cannot stay on task with the more intellectual message of Ms Warren which doesn’t bode well for a grass roots movement. I can only hope that I can cast my vote for Elizabeth Warren when the California primary rolls around.
11
The below is actually a great idea in theory but in practice will affect retirement accounts that depend on wall street so will be hard in practice. Wonder if she will ever do anything about activist investors who take over companies and destroy them for very short term gain? Maybe if they don't provide donations she will? That seems like a better first step.
"She wants to require corporations to include worker representatives on their boards — to end the era of “shareholder-value maximization,” in which companies care almost exclusively about the interests of their shareholders, often at the expense of their workers, their communities and their country"
1
Putting policy pros and cons aside for a moment, the fatal problem with a federal wealth tax is that it would be unconstitutional because it would be a direct tax that is not imposed on income and not apportioned among the states. In addition, I would think that the priority for Democrats right now would be nominating someone who can carry enough of middle America to beat Trump. I don’t think Sen. Warren is that person.
3
@Mark B
A wealth tax would have to be apportioned at the state level. This could be effectively accomplished at the federal level by using the basic constitutional loop-hole it has used ever since the 16th amendment: bribe the states with federal funds.
I think getting this economic message across and rallying support of the voters must start with a change in the language being used.
Using words like 'rigged' and 'fair share' turns a lot of people off (including me).
Try statements like, "A higher marginal tax rate on those making greater than 50 million is not going to prevent those wealthy from being able to afford their own children's pre-K or Day Care but will allow those who serve the coffee, cash out the groceries and clean their houses to send theirs too."
We all benefit from a better educated society so let's make this a win-win conversation instead of a divisive one. Stop speaking of the one percent as villains when it's them you want to contribute to the betterment of our society.
Perhaps Elizabeth Warren could start asking if there are any billionaires willing to step up and declare their support. Then she'd be on to that larger than life agenda that would sway the American electorate.
170
@doc007
millionaires ask to be taxed
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/nyregion/millionaires-tax.html
even some billionaires support higher taxes. Soros, Buffet, Bill Gates, Douglas Durst. There are others..
39
Capitalistic Republicanism has one major flaw, it advocates, in its actions and the policies it enacts, that
MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE
with which the liberal community disagrees. The Supreme Court's Ruling in Citizens United is a prime example. But all of Wall Street, the rise of American, Russian, Chinese, and Indian Oligarchs is another example. The Constitution holds:
"...no man can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..." And the "property" view is taking over all of our motivations. Our Representatives are bought and paid for before they run for office. On average a congressman spends nearly 2 million dollars to get a 140 thousand dollar a year job. How's that work out for the rule of law and the equality of the people? The Political Action Committees (pacs, were the pack in the money) are simply addresses where the bribes can be sent. And the Courts have ruled that the bribes are now free Speech. King George should have thought of that.
The Constitution enshrines the opinion that "man is not wise enough to govern himself." Only Jefferson opposed this idea
by asking,"Then he should govern others?" The people have never voted on a law they live under; never voted directly for the Executive officers, never voted for a Federal Judge. Because the "Founding Oligarchs" didn't want the people to do so. The people are to be governed, ruled, and whoever makes the rules, Rules the nation. We need change.
2
Come on David, get real. New political ideas are certainly necessary in our current situation but if someone has never implemented any that's asking too much. So, please, let's find someone who's been a governor, a mayor or even a responsible corporate executive. Ideas are not plans.
Some thought the ACA was a great idea but the initial implementation was botched and the subsequent years showed other weaknesses (i.e. the idea of inserting a profit-making insurance company between a patient and his doctor).
The wealth tax is another potential example. It sounds easy until you have to make it work. Exactly who is going to decide the size of any particular billionaire's wealth? The unfunded IRS? They might come up with a number but what if it's disputed? They could be in court for years trying to settle that. If even if that's eventually settled, the assets in question or taxpayer might have moved out of the country.
3
Whoever the Democratic candidate is they must adopt policies that attack Trump where he is most strongly supported: you have to be against illegal immigration and you have to support your policy through E-verify for all employers as well as beefed up interdiction at the border. This is not a simple case of “bar the door, “Katey.”
Without that policy no walls will keep out illegal immigrants because however and wherever they enter they still need jobs to stay and live here. Republicans have simply dropped the ball on this and other preventives, but they love to use the issue to generate emotional energy for the Party. They have for years opposed any policy of actually dealing with this issue — including the Wall!
Each time the democrat tees up the economy for long term growth, the Republican comes along and takes advantage of that for short term political expediency and the nation falls for it every time.
8
Warren has proposed the largest confiscation of private property in world history. Warren seeks to destroy wealth and capitalism
4
America and the whole world entered the Post-Capitalist era decades ago, David just hasn’t woken up to that political reality. Now global corporations buy and sell politicians that have destroyed American democracy. Money and corporations have the same rights as people! That Post-Capitalist fact alone vitiates this opinion piece.
6
If it wasn’t Socialism when we did K-12 in 1890 why would it be socialism to have Community Colleges included now.
12
@Rich Murphy
Indeed, if K-12 was socialism, then we should get over the lexical shock for the word and support this form of socialism for higher education. Impoverishing students before they leave college is incredibly stupid and is sure to suppress the whole of society.
A moral society looks out for members of the community and cannot organize itself on the idea of every person pursuing their self interest. We need to educate all people and provide health care for all people without organizing the activities around making profits for the greedy.
We need to ensure opportunities for all. We need to stop forcing people to want to immigrate here because we have oppressed the lands where they are fleeing. All of these needs require a focus on the common needs of humanity and cannot be addressed by pursuit of self interest. The hidden hand of the market that will create wealth for all is a pernicious hoax--a magical myth.
2
I dunno. She’s too much of a one issue candidate.
She tried to reform Wall Street but failed when Trump won the election.
Now she’s talking about telling Silicon Valley how they can and can’t run their business.
It’s another losing battle.
But...at least she moved the topic off of whether or not she’s an American Indian.
1
… “end the era of shareholder-value maximization.” Hmm… I wonder if employees and other stakeholders were owners (i.e. shareholders) if the idea of shareholder-value maximization would be so repugnant? Perhaps a better solution is to explore ways to broaden shareholder ownership.
Reforming capitalism is a revolution: Rich greedy people restraining themselves to allow the others out there having a decent life.
2
@Roland Berger
Rich greedy people restraining themselves is fine, Roland, but we cannot wait for them to do this by themselves. We must restrain them. The powerful will relinquish power only when we take it from them. Few will be persuaded to give up just because they should.
2
I want to take up behavior and a comment by Douthat.
Douthat to score a point against Warren with the tone of voice that implies "for heavens sake" even if not spoken it's meant, points out that Warren can't be a serious candidate because she is a Harvard professor and meant it with all the anti-intellectualism freighted by the far right against being a smart, informed, educated person with excellent critical thinking skills. For one thing, just hearing her talk in this interview, no one would really have thought shes Harvard--until someone like Douthat weaponizes it like he does here all dog
whistles sounded. I call out Leonhardt and Goldberg for not calling out Douthat for invoking dog whistle tactics meant to rally presicely the base susceptible to the likes of Trump which he claims to detest even if a conservative.
At one point Douthat laughingly disses, I forget what, but he was smug. condescending and was not backed up with squat. It was as if by sheer having said it, he was right, granted, milder than what is on far right media.
The other two discussants did not do either. I would add that they should not have and must call out Douthat when he does it and that the press must in general refuse to accept the behavior as a contribution to the conversation when instead it further erodes civil interaction.
4
A clear majority of Americans favor universal child care and decent-paying jobs until they find out that people of color, blacks and Latinos, will also benefit from both---and then they'll be against it. We have got to come to grips with the fact that Donald Trump is president because of racism. He keeps playing the race card because it worked for him in 2016 and he has no reason to believe it won't work again. Johnnie Cochrane said, "Everything is about race; the sooner we stop dancing around that issue the better off we'll all be."
5
She is the best!
5
I like her ideas, be she doesn't have the personality to win. 2016 all over again. Here's the thing about the capitalism v. socialism debate. Warren is the only one who gets it right. Socialism has become a sexy word on the left, and a curse word on the right. Capitalism needs reform. For all you liberals who think you want socialism, look at the Nordic countries. THEY ARE NOT socialist. Got it? They are capitalists who have a robust welfare state coupled with a business-friendly environment. All the economic success in the world happens WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK of capitalism. Got it? To make things worse, we have people like Sanders and AOC embracing these very policies, and erroneously calling them socialist, thus ceding territory to the right. The Dems' ability to self-destruct is remarkable. Trump will win by using an imagined socialist threat as a cudgel against non-socialists CALLING THEMSELVES SOCIALISTS out of either their own ignorance of the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy," or their attempt to appeal to the snowflakes of my generation. The Democrats' policies are broadly more popular! But instead we're talking past each other, getting bogged down on a word. Fox is already calling the GND socialist, when it's a highly capitalistic project, much like any industrial project. Cap 'n' trade for carbon? Also a free-market solution, but the repubs decry it as socialist, and instead of correcting them, the libs own it. Unbelievable!
9
I always shake my head when I hear those on the right call FDR a socialist. They either don't know what socialism is, who FDR was or have a functional knowledge of history.
Yes, as the author said, FDR fought to save American capitalism from itself. He was also fighting to save it from radical political extremists from across the spectrum - among them, socialists, communists, fascists and anarchists.
Remember what was going on around the world in the '20s and 30s. And, right here in America where armed radicals from both left and right were threatening a real, bloody revolution.
The economic measures of the New Deal put people back to work and took the wind out of the sails of radicals.
A staunch capitalist, FDR didn't install socialism in America. He prevented it.
13
@James J
Thank you! It's the same thing with the "what about the Nordic countries?" argument for socialism. They are neither classified as--nor claim to be--socialists. They embrace "social democracy," which they describe as "capitalism with socialist principles." It's a free market framework with universal services, environmental regs, and labor unions. Democrats, as usual, shoot themselves in the foot by embracing reformed capitalism and CALLING IT SOCIALISM. Trump will win because of this incredible ability to make good ideas sound terrible. When Dems take the bait, they allow Repubs to redefine it as a contest between socialism and Laissez-Faire, rather than two competing versions of capitalism. They do THE SAME THING with the founding fathers and patriotism. The Founders would universally reject Trump, yet liberals are too busy telling everyone we shouldn't care about those old white men because, you know, they weren't flawless. My god. Dems are so easily out-maneuvered by the right. They do half the work for them.
9
“Progressivism” is another word for “Give me what you earned because I want it”. How about this instead: let’s fix schools so students actually learn civics and other fundamental skills to succeed; Democrats have run most major cities for decades yet in NYC for example housing for the poor is a disgrace worthy of an updated Jacob Riis spread so I suggest “progressives” get after that before they yap about capitalism. Then let’s invest in the trades again in a similar (not identical) fashion as Europe does to educate youth in areas of interest and social needs rather than falsely telling everyone that college is a must. Theses are practical items to help people noe and going forward. Warren is merely grandstanding to turn the country from its foundation of individual worth to one of big-brother control.
4
This is hilarious! Who really believes that Elizabeth Warren should be in charge of anything?
2
"...is trying to save American capitalism from its own excesses." Unless, capitalism is working for everyone in our society, it is not working.
4
Nice summary of Elizabeth Warren's aim, the benefit of each and all members of society in what an advanced economy and revolutionary technology ought to offer, so to enhance life's enjoyment. We live in a capitalistic system that has the virtue of it's 'creative destruction', allowing corporations to compete with each other, and allowing the best to win and remain in business (be effective, yes, but also efficient, to survive). If this system were to cut it's odious inequalities, be pragmatic and ethical, it would be applauded; but without sensible regulation and public supervision, it remains selfish and greedy, a recipe for it's own demise, a disaster in waiting. Ms Warren is acutely aware, as the rest of us should, that 'a chain is only as strong as it's weakest lik'. This, if we want to remain a democracy worth it's name. Otherwise, might as well call it a Trumpian 'pluto-kleptocracy'. Can't we see that the rich are getting richer by taking from the poor, a malevolent reversed socialism? Now, as to Warren's electoral chances to become president, however smart and accurate she is of what afflicts this society, she may not be the most popular candidate unless she shows a more populist and emotional side to engage people, and show how decent and capable she is, worlds apart from the brutus ignoramus currently occupying the Oval Office (and so undeservedly it stinks!).
1
Liz W makes a lot of sense. I hope she wins. Trump will likely lose unless the Urban vote doesn't support his opponent like they did not turn out for Hillary. Ms. Warren needs to promote amnesty for nonviolent offenders, nobody thinks reparation will ever pass Congress. She needs to say "Let's end this racist Drug War." Forget ICE shutdown the DEA!
A must read!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/opinion/letters/democrats-governor-senator-2020.html
"Thankfully some governors (John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee) have entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president. Up to now many of the announced presidential hopefuls have been senators, even though no sitting senator has ever beaten an incumbent president running for re-election. In fact, only three sitting senators have ever been elected president: Harding, Kennedy and Obama.
There have been five elections in which a sitting senator challenged an incumbent president: Clay, 1832; Goldwater, 1964; McGovern, 1972; Dole, 1996; and Kerry, 2004. None were successful, and two were beaten by some of the largest margins in history. However, five presidents have lost their re-election bids since 1900, and all lost to governors or former governors: Taft to Wilson; Hoover to Roosevelt; Ford to Carter; Carter to Reagan; and Bush to Clinton.
Of the four presidents before Donald Trump who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, only one was subsequently re-elected. That was George W. Bush, and he ran against a senator.
Please, Democrats, take back the White House. Avoid nominating a sitting senator as your candidate and find a governor with the characteristics of the two most recent successful challengers of Republican incumbents, Carter and Clinton. If Democrats ignore history, it will be at their, and the country’s, peril."
Doug Campos-Outcalt
Phoenix
1
Let us pick this powerful team now, start supporting the agenda for the country, the people are the country. Bernie's rallies on youtube are fantastic, production with a top
quality inspirational message of hope. We need to bet on a sure win, we need team players ahead of the crowd.
President Bernie Sanders
VP Warren
OR
President Warren
VP Bernie Sanders
Sec of State AOC !! why not? she gets most votes on twitter
Att Gen Avenatti--supports progressive and aggressive!
another vote getter on twitter
We Can Do This
1
So long as capitalism allows for lying about ethnicity as a path to success, she'll be all for it.
4
@Amy
It seems that if Harvard is to maintain any credibility about integrity at all, it must remove her Emeritus status in the Law School not that there is undeniable evidence of her deception.
1
We don't need a racist for president What? Elizabeth Warren a racist? Yes, that is exactly what she is by virtue of promoting her American Indian DNA as a credential and actually having it measured (no matter that it came out 1/1000 or so of an actual native American, it is still more than yours). She has tied herself in knots explaining this but it should not go away. She does not have the moral stature for the presidency. Add to all of this the improbability of her extreme candidacy and the excellence of many other Democratic candidates and she is a non starter.
Desperately trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. And of course she offers usual Liberal solutions - higher taxes And more government regulation.
It's soo good to read warren being given a fair hearing for her ideas. The media such as it is oerall, tends to repeat ad infinitum, comments about candidates which might once have withered in paper news times. So it means that once ANYONE says she is too " shrill" (womanspeak translation: she has a higher pitched female voice) and too angry ( she is genuinely upset of the diminishment of opportunity for poor and working class people) but not authoritative ( she's a woman), these get disseminated as negative characteristics warping future reporting.
So I like this Leonhardt take on her positions and abilities: her agenda is bold, her plans are detailed, she actually envisions changes that can be made and can explain them. She even understood what happened in the 2008 near collapse of the economy. She doesn't want to destroy corporations but wants them to play a role in making America stronger through rebuilding a prosperous middle class.
What is not to like?
3
If you want to fix the economy we must returned to a “controlled capitalistic system”.
There must be some control over capitalism because all societies have objectives that go beyond the maximization of wealth. The basics of the system would include returning effective tax rates to 1968 levels as summarized in these two links, http://lstrn.us/2y5js3T and https://taxfoundation.org/2019-tax-brackets/, the breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, overturning Citizens United and no longer allowing politicians to legally gerrymander congressional districts to legally rig elections.
The question is do we have the will.
1
"So far, only one candidate among the 2020 contenders has an agenda with this level of ambition."
Yep. Sen. Sanders NEVER proposed an ambitious agenda.
The not-so-subtle slight is beneath the NYT.
1
The difference between the Dem candidates, who all genuinely want to do what’s best for the majority of people, and the GOP, which only wants to act in the interests of the very few, couldn’t be starker.
I don’t understand how GOP candidates ever gets elected. It’s a classic example of people voting contrary to their own interests.
3
I'd be very happy to be able to say, 'President Elizabeth Warren' in 2021. What a sigh of relief and needed sanity for a nation currently on the precipice.
9
@Sage President Anyone-but-Trump would do!
2
Populists on both left and right exploit legitimate grievances but rarely offer workable solutions. I have not studied Sen. Warren's positions in depth but every time I hear her speak she fails to impress me with her populist rhetoric. I am all for addressing the deficiencies in capitalism that have negative social and environmental consequences, but don't believe this can be accomplished without appreciating the many strengths of our current system and economy. Based on listening to her speak, Sen. Warren does not strike me as a person who can offer needed reform without causing unintended damage to the economy.
2
We need more people like Elizabeth Warren to run for both local and national offices across the entire country.
We need people who are willing to buck the corporatocracy status quo.
We need fresh new ideas that will help the majority of Americans and not just those at the top.
We need good policies in place to help those who are struggling with basic needs including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and prescription drugs. These include children, the disabled, the elderly on fixed incomes, and parents who need a job with a living wage and affordable childcare.
These are things that many countries in Europe already provide for their citizenry. So why can't the "richest country on earth" provide those things? The simple answer is the greed of those at the top and their enablers in every segment of government along with an insatiable desire to keep funding wars and the Military Industrial Complex. If we put our military spending on par with other nations it would only be about one fifth or less of what it is now. We as a people need to put our citizenry first and military hardware much farther down on the list of those things we are willing to fund.
Congress keeps giving the Pentagon more than what they ask for which results in huge amounts of waste of taxpayer dollars. We have over a trillion dollars worth of brand new planes that went from the factory to the junkyard because the military can't use them, is only one example of the waste in the system.
6
Andrew Yang has a few big ideas too and his main idea of $1,000 per month for every adult citizen of the USA is arguably bigger and more attractive and more understandable than any other ideas out there, including those of Warren's. But, just as this article has pointed out, Warren has bold ideas too. In my estimate Warren and Yang are both extremely honest and reasonable people who are truly out to help the American people. I hope they end up stealing each other's best ideas.
1
" ...to end the era of “shareholder-value maximization,” in which companies care almost exclusively about the interests of their shareholders, often at the expense of their workers, their communities and their country."
This is the crux of the argument. In the present capitalism, the situation is described by the present capitalists as binary: either you maximize short-term profits for shareholders or the business fails.
I have to ask where this cockamamie idea came from?
Why can't you have a healthy profit for investors that is BOTH short-term (but lower) that just keeps on giving (long-term). That would inspire capital to invest in the long-term in order to keep those investors investing (with a decent return) throughout their economic lives.
Why can't businesses show their investors that their a portion of their profits are being invested in providing for a healthy community that will pay back by providing labor and ideas for a continuing enterprise thus ensuring that long-term return?
So on one side you have short-term greed and on the other an investment in the future for future citizens (now in the cradle).
The CEOs can still have their GulfStream X, just not five of them.
106
@Larry
Dang~!
Could have sworn the last great recession was from a Republican practicing low/giveaway taxes, low/no regulation, Trickle Down nonsense.
One that did result in a worldwide depression.
Is that what you are still promoting?
History shows the last Great Depression was under the same failed ideas as Bush the Lessor tried.
Are you suggesting that the Great Kansas experiment was a success?
You prefer the top 10% have everything while the bottom 90% scrounge for scraps?
Tell us what you want to enact.
'Cause currently 64% of America can't afford a $1000. emergency.
FIX that.
How you going to do it?!
Or do you even want to fix it.
68
There is no democracy without economic democracy.
There is no justice without economic justice.
There is no liberty or freedom without a just economic system.
6
I have a median income - paid federal taxes all year. At tax time I wrote checks totaling $3,600 cash to Federal and State government - much higher Federal tax than ever I paid before.
What happened? Republicans moved 30 pct of my income into the higher 22 pct federal tax bracket, and removed deductions for State taxes from my federal obligation. I was hit hard, and it will be much worse when my so-called 'tax-cut' expires while the tax cut for the wealthy remains permanent.
The taxes I paid are not 'redistribution'. The taxes I paid are my 'civic responsibility'. Yet they are a tremendous burden on me because Republicans rigged and rigged again the federal tax system for their donors.
This situation is a result of corruption. A rigged economic system is a consequence of powerful people rationalizing their own unethical and immoral behavior, while ensuring the system works for themselves first and best.
The hawks continue to insist our foreign policy be less diplomatic and more militaristic; sapping our national resources while the wealthiest refuse to pay a reasonable share for all they benefit from the economy.
A spiritual sickness is upon the elite. Pride and Greed and a sense of entitlement - hold all the power.
It is the 'self-entitlement' which needs cutting.
Reform the human heart and soul. The economy and the national debt may follow.
17
This is exactly what the GOP doesn't understand. If we don't fix our capitalist system we will, eventually, wind up like other formerly capitalist countries where the rich took everything they could and left little or nothing for the rest. China was capitalist before Mao. Cuba was, too, before Castro. Venezuela before Chavez. We know how those turned out.
You can rationalize those situations as strongmen who conned their fellow countrymen, but the fact is that their countrymen were desperate for another option because what they were living under was not working for them.
If one looks at capitalism as an engine, the choices are either to invest and do preventative maintenance now so the engine continues to run reliably, or do nothing and wait for the engine to catastrophically fail beyond repair. The GOP seems to have selected the latter. Unless we do something to change this via the electoral process, history will prove this an unfortunate choice.
11
Yes, our economy is rigged in favor of the 1%. Obama did nothing to de-rig it, and Trump has only made the rigging worse.
I will only, repeat only, support economic populists, candidates with clear and detailed POLICY solutions that make this economy work for us all. If they're progressive on social issues too, that's a bonus. But we Progressives are sick and tired of politicians using progressive social positions to hide their conservative economic positions.
Question for all the candidates:
What are your POLICIES, not your PLATITUDES??
303
@G.Janeiro unfortunately the American populace at large does not care about policy at all or republicans wouldn't exist since there is no large constituency for their only coherent position of cutting taxes on rich people.
25
More than anyone else, I see Elizabeth Warren as running to save the country (no need to list problems here) and has worked super hard to position herself to help make that happen in the most effective way - as President.
In November, I will vote for any Democrat, but she has my primary vote and assistance with ground campaign as volunteer.
453
@JK
She has my vote too and I only hope and pray that the American people will realize that we need Eliz. Warren as our president.
30
@JK
Agree!
25
I have wealthy friends who I have been discussing inequality and the growing discontent among average Americans. To this day they still don't get it. I have finally decided that a much easier way for them to see the problem is to show how the American middle class is shrinking. This has huge ramifications for once middle class Americans who are now struggling to keep their heads above water. Access to good healthcare, free college tuition raising the minimum wage and yes a Green New Deal will help to once again grow the middle class. Liz Warren gets all of this. Go Liz Warren!
514
Senator Warren understands the way the economy is rigged in favor of corporate interests to the detriment of individuals and in favor of the wealthy in ways which unfairly enable them to multiply their largess. Her campaign shoukd highlight these issues and possible remedies, which actually can be effective.
I do not believe her knowledge and sincere dedication to the economic well being of our nation would best be served from the Oval Office. Head of the CFPB, continuing in the Senate (hopefully for an administration that can turn her ideas into law) or even as a Supreme Court Justice willing to restrain the legal dominance of corporate interests over individual rights would offer her better ways to achieve her goals.
Trump and his ilk will try to marginalize Warren as the communist job killing Pocahontas, and sadly, Warren’s expertise will be buried in the crowded field of Democratic candidates vying for media attention. It would be sad if an electoral defeat ended the potential for the positive impact of her expertise and ideas.
@Asher Fried: "Senator Warren understands the way the economy is rigged in favor of corporate interests to the detriment of individuals and in favor of the wealthy in ways which unfairly enable them to multiply their largess."
That's because government and businesses are colluding to alter the tax code. Senator Warren's solutions do not fix the underlying problem.
Better to make the tax code simpler and eliminate tax breaks, subsidies, carve-outs and whatever else that gives businesses an advantage. If corporations truly believe in the free market they shouldn't be looking to government for help.
That same mentality should apply to any special interest group looking to alter the tax code for their wants. All that does is shift taxes to others.
While we're simplifying the tax code, we can lower tax rates all around. But that will do us no good unless we reduce government spending. Let's see Senator Warren tackle all of that.
1
@hm1342
Debating the specifics is a good thing....Warren’s substantive ideas will be lost Presidential campaign cacophony.
@Asher Fried
The reason this article is so important is that it distinguishes her from other candidates. She has a thorough understanding of our current economic system, and her policy pronouncements are very sound and needed. I'd like to see more articles about the vision and policies of Senator Warren so she can be distinguished from the crowd!
3
I can't imagine what David Leonhardt means when he says that Bill Clinton "made the tax code more progressive." Under Clinton, the tax rate on capital gains and dividends (rich people income) was lowered from 28% to 20%, while the top rate on earned income (actual work, middle class income) was raised.
By this act (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993), Clinton aggravated the growing wealth gap and helped get us where we are now. Let's also not forget that Glass-Steagall protections against bank fraud and risky behavior were ended under Bill Clinton's watch, and you can draw a straight line from that to bank failures and the Great Recession that we are still dealing with.
We can better assess the present when our facts about the past are correct.
12
I strongly disagree with this, Mr. Leonhardt, "Warren’s grasp of the country’s problems does not necessarily mean that she should be the Democratic nominee for president. Politics is not an expertise competition. The nominee should be, and most likely will be, the candidate who best inspires voters."
NO. This should not be a population contest. This is about MANAGING OUR GOVERNMENT. Senator Warren is a doer and manager - much like Angela Merkel. She will work for 99.9% of us.
Celebrities and "popular" candiates are in it for the 0.01% they have some kind of love affair with or are part of.
It is time for Americans to wake up and stop electing fraudsters and "celebrities". Elanor Roosevelt was the least likely to be popular but she worked tirelessly for 99.9% of the people and they came to love her right along with FDR.
Senator Warren is much more attractive and friendly than Ms. Roosevelt but she has the same kind of ideas and is EXACTLY what/who WE THE PEOPLE need right now if we want to restore democracy in OUR United States of America.
13
Thank you for this informative article. Hopefully policy ideas will have some importance for voters this time time around. Even since Reagan I thought America needs a "king" who will shake hands and smile and then a "real" president, who may not be charismatic but has knowledge and ideas.
5
I would love to see Warren/Sanders or Sanders /Warren as the democratic ticket. Both would be too much for Individual-1/Zombie, no matter the topic as the latter are imposters.
2
The party's nomination will be won by a charismatic (O'Rourke) not by an evangelist (Warren, or Sanders), just like Trump was able to defeat 16 primary opponents and the entire GOP establishment. People forget that before Trump became the GOP, the GOP spent over 100 million soles against Trump with their "anyone but Trump" campaign.
In a crowded primary field a charismatic cult of personality type who has no specific policy positions has a big advantage over evangelical policy types who preach about specific issues and public policy remedies. Trump was the GOP's charismatic in the 2016 crowded Republican field. Who will be the Democrats 2020 charismatic in an enormously crowded primary field? My bet is on BETO?
1
@Sparky I suspect that what you say is true unless we get out there are educate people, revealing that ideas are not so difficult to assess and that we are capable of admiring more than a pretty face and empty rhetoric. Getting messages heard has to be the objective. What Trump offered was nonsense. Was he really going to put miners back in coal mines, while replacing the coal there as well? We have to encourage our neighbors and communities to engage with real ideas. Warren has them, no question, even if the evangelical aspect is less unappealing than a messianic one coming from a cool dude somewhere.
1
WITHOUT SOME SOCIALISM AND PROGRESSIVE TAX POLICY CAPITALISM IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
It systematically leads to increasing inequality.
13
@Tracy Rupp. First, please don't shout at us. Second, socialism has proven itself to be a failed system. Perhaps you mean the US needs to, eg, improve the social safety net and reduce inequality; those are not part of socialism. Free-market capitalism remains the best system for generating wealth that has been devised. And as the article pointed out, inequality was much lower in the period from 1940s to the 70s, so this inequality is not inherent in American capitalism; we have allowed the inequality to expand, and that is what Warren (and others) are opposed to.
Regarding the wealth tax, that probably won't fly; 8 countries in the EU, including France, have dropped it, as it is too cumbersome to administer. (Everything a family owns has to be appraised, including things like book-collections, art, Persian carpets, vehicles, etc; the logistics of doing this for all the eligible families
is daunting, at best.)What would probably be better is increasing the inheritance tax, and eliminating differences categories of income (dividends are currently taxed at a lower rate than wages). there are undoubtedly other ways as well, so let's not get too wrapped up on the means at this point, and focus on the end: getting rid of Trump in 2020.
2
Exactly, Tracy Rupp. Thank you for your post and waking people up. Sometimes one has to shout to be heard and NOW is the time.
3
@Danny Getting rid of Trump is not enough. There has to be a reason for those that were fooled by him to converge into the mainstream of Americans that understand the level of his corruption and are repelled by it.
1
"Americans are deeply divided on social issues like abortion, religion and, to some extent, immigration and guns. But a clear majority favors a wealth tax. A clear majority favors universal child care. A clear majority favors aggressive government action to check corporate power and create decent-paying jobs."
The problem, IMH(humble)O, is that what is popular don't really become real or actually suffice because entrenched, industrial, corporate interests will always find a way to destroy what the popular will wants.
2
@Aloysius
Or the corporate interests will just convince the people that the policy is bad, like what happened to Obamacare.
And people will eat the propaganda up and rail against the policy until it's put in place against their will, only then to realize in hindsight that it wasn't such a bad policy after all.
2
I like Elizabeth Warren, however I really think she should stay in the race, put her ideas out there but wear a sign saying, " I want to be Chief of Staff" for Pres Amy Klobuchar and VP Beto O'Rourke. Amy Klobuchar, please be nice to Beto and put it out there the two of you should team up for the win.
@Missy
She should lower her status to be the Chief-of-Staff for lesser candidates? Why? Beto has zero ideas, is a lightweight, and Amy chews up her staff and is basically a centrist. I'll take Senator Warren as the top Banana. She deserves to be President.
1
She doesn't want to "Fix Capitalism" as you say. She and most other progressive Democrats really want to Destroy Capitalism and bring in Socialism, which has worked out so well over the past 100 years around the world.
4
@Michael No Michael, she does not want to destroy capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit that has invigorated and defined this nation. She simply believes that the corporate world requires restraint provided by a government that is competent. I see no Republicans that will admit this even if they know it to be true.
7
@Michael The American version of capitalism is perverse and is weighted toward the rich. The interests of the poor and middle class cannot penetrate the wall of money that surrounds Washington. Some services need to be socialized, such as police, military, and healthcare. This has worked in every other country in the world. Are you comfortable with the fact that Americans can't afford decent health care, and your politicians, whose health care you pay for, don't give a hoot?
1
Do you have any evidence that this is what Democrats uniformly want and are actively trying to achieve? And over what time period? All Democrats since which election?
Please try to have constructive and informative conversations rather than echo baseless, inflammatory memes. Some of us are genuinely trying to have an informed dialogue and learn alternative viewpoints to augment our own.
1
If Americans want more equality and more democracy we'll have to vote for people who will regulate the market place.
But if we keep buying the lie that a free market equals freedom, well, here comes 2030 and climate peril.
10
Fixing capitalism might need to go even deeper, although I don't know what. I would like to see investors focus on something other than quarterly returns, and I would also like to see board members and major investors held directly and personally responsible for the misdeeds of their corporations. To the point where they don't get their bonuses.
"If corporations are people, then corporations can go to jail."
Right now, under current law, the biggest architects of the 2008 recession all walked off with golden parachutes. A Google exec who got fired for harassment walked off with a $90M severance package. The bank execs who presided over loan scandals and robo-foreclosures didn't do any jail time or lose any assets themselves. And large conglomerates who snapped up foreclosed homes are now free to gouge the tenants and use robo-eviction to turn over tenants on any pretext, thus creating more homelessness and displacement.
The Boeing officials who made the bad decision not to train pilots on the 737 Max should be personally sued by the families of the passengers who died in recent crashes.
Now THAT would be a different sort of capitalism, with consequences.
16
Elizabeth Warren is knowledgable, practical, and can communicate with ordinary citizens. Her plans focus on the needs of the people, not the corporations (which are not people, in spite of Mitt Romney's assertions).
So Republicans are terrified. The ridiculous hubbub about Native American ancestry was engineered by Republicans to tarnish her and her name before she could explode on the national stage. Anyone who believes that this disqualifies her is, intentionally or not, pushing us toward another 4 years of Trump.
We need to get on the road to a more progressive national outlook, but the extreme progressive candidates are too far left for our country right now. We need a candidate who is practical, progressive and comfortable for the independent voter to vote for. That is Elizabeth Warren.
13
There is not a parent - regardless of income - that does not begin to fret where/how their kid(s) are when school lets out. This is a consequence (cost) of women moving to the workplace that Americans have never addressed in a straight ahead way. We have all suffered for it.
If Warren can keep her focus on these types of policy issues - popular because they are universal to the vast majority of Americans - she will do well.
It's hard to imagine Trump - who was a millionaire by age 8 - has much to say about this.
7
I believer her and I believer she can change it for the better for everyone. I Hope That We Give Her The Opportunity!!!! That is what think.
4
This is one of those situations wherein the "fix," i.e. the cure, will be worse than the disease.
Warren has never run a business in her life.
3
@Dougal E
That is a classic deflection. There are many reasons why people who have run businesses will be blind to effects that do not fit in their frame of reference. It is also the reason why many successful businesses eventually go out of business: they fail to see the big picture because they are constrained by their frame of reference (we have never done it that way, or we have always done it this way). Prime example: Sears.
Often it is the very people who have never done something that see the new way of doing something.
12
@Dougal E. Since when do we need someone to have "run a business" to understand what makes good policy? We currently have our business owner president and watching how clueless he is on many, many issues, I don't understand this constant mantra. Warren represents many of the middle American's who voted for Trump out of frustration with corporate political ideas. She grew up right in the heartland and knew the struggles of the lower middle class. She worked her way up the ladder through persistence and hard work while fighting the social pushback against women that was so prevalent in that era. While born into a conservative, Republican family, she grew disenchanted with the economic answers that were becoming the base of the Republican Party in the early 80's. Her studies and writings concerning the growing bankruptcy cases in the state 70's, 80's and 90's proved to her as many others that the trickle down, all or nothing capitalistic movement was leaving a great wake of harm among the lower and middle classes while rewarding the business and wealthy communities. So I think she "gets it" in regard to the despair being felt in the heartland.
18
Running a business is nothing like presiding over an economy.
9
Whip smart, explains so all can understand, has lived as poor, middle class, and upper middle class, and CONCERNED for the country and world.. As much as I love Bernie, Warren can stand up to Trump and the dunces in the media to keep getting her points across.
At this point in our dissipated country's history she has my vote. Name a handful of the other candidates to VP and cabinet positions.
20
Our federal deficits are unsustainable, and we need more revenue. Personally, I'd be willing to pay a wealth tax (and a carbon tax).
However, there are real problems with a wealth tax from a policy perspective. One fundamental problem with a tax on wealth (as opposed to a tax on income) is that a frugal person who saves his or her money will pay considerably more in taxes than a person who is not frugal--who spends his or her money on trips to Vegas, custom-made clothes, expensive motor vehicles that depreciate rapidly, etc. Do we really want to adopt a tax structure that disincentivizes frugality?
Further, there would be problems with enforcement. If a person owns $500,000 worth of watches and jewelry, will the tax authorities be aware of that wealth? Would such a tax encourage shifting of one's "investment portfolio" to such easily-concealable assets over financial instruments or real estate?
Third, a tax on wealth would necessitate a degree of government invasiveness into the lives of private citizens that could lead to a real libertarian surge. That's the last thing we need.
7
@David Just to note that a "wealth tax" would produce a mere drop in the fiscal bucket, as Warren is well aware. A "wealth tax" is Eliz's way of pandering to those feeling left behind or envious. Votes, baby, votes. Sell it! Wealth Tax, yeah, stick it to them...
Well, money that he/she spend should come from someplace. The source should be known to authorities and taxed.
1
The article said the wealth tax applied to $50 million or more, so you don’t have to worry about a $100,000 jewelry collection.
1
Both Warren and Sanders are excellent candidates to lead us in, let's not mince words, a class warfare battle against the super rich. But, through no fault of his own, Sanders made too many enemies when he challenged Clinton. And, if Sanders is not in it for himself, as I firmly believe, he should step aside and let Warren lead the battle.
6
@Jack Edwards there are no longer “classes” in America, everyone wants the same thing. Class warfare is an obsolete nineteenth century term meant to deflect us from the real problem.
The more I learn about Elizabeth Warren, the more I like and appreciate her and her ideas. So far, she's my frontrunner!
12
How can someone fix capitalism who talks about breaking up innovative corporations like Facebook and Google? How have recent liberal Democrats from Massachusetts (think Dukakis, Kerry) done in recent Presidential races? Moreover, her optics are poor--she comes across an old scolding school teacher--and don't compare well with younger potential nominees like O'Rourke, Harris or Booker. If the Democrats really want to defeat Trump, a more moderate candidate like Biden or O'Rourke are their best bets.
4
@John Kellum
Other successful innovative corporations that were broken up: AT&T.
While that had some disadvantages (at the time a substantial amount of the monopoly income was spent on innovation, e.g., in Bell Laboratories that invented numerous computing languages including C, much of the Internet communications came as spin-offs from the break-up.
So, splitting up monopolies or things close to being monopolies is not altogether bad.
1
Thank you for this description of Elizabeth Warren, that finally does justice to her vast intelligence, considered and crystalline opinions, generosity of mind, and true patriotism. Elizabeth Warren, early on, called on the legal community to stand firm for the constitution and readily identified the threats to its health. She explained to Martin Summers why the country was on the brink of financial disaster before 2008, proposed remedies, and was summarily dismissed by Summers. She's not a showboater, and that may not help her in this star-obsessed culture. But her modesty would well suit the office of Presidency, especially now.
26
Thank you, David! Thank you for getting the point that Elizabeth Warren wants to make capitalism work for everyone. The economy is not "thriving" for most of us, though your Editorial Board and Donald Trump would claim otherwise. Capitalism has not worked for the masses, though Bret Stephens thinks it has. The only kind of capitalism that has ever worked, or will ever work, is the kind Adam Smith originally called for, even if he has been ignored by our economics texts. We need "capitalism with a conscience." That means progressive taxation and it means regulation. It means valuing labor. It means treating all people like the persons that they are, deserving of dignity and respect.
20
I feel sorry for those who would vote against Warren based on the Native American controversy. The hour is late for America. We should only be voting for President based on policy positions. To do otherwise merely strengthens the sensationalist media and the hyper-wealthy.
15
Elizabeth Warren is a national treasure.
But to steal her vernacular for a moment, we have to maximize this asset.
Are we best served with her as president or Secretary of the Treasury or Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Can she really march into Congress and sway them? I love her mind, but her political style comes across with the same artificial “aw shucks” perfected by Paul Ryan, even if she originally came from Oklahoma.
We need an LBJ president with her in charge of the monetary policy.
9
@Barbara Franklin
Those are positions for economists or finance people. She’s an attorney. If she was the Attorney General, she could pursue criminal actions for both securities and antitrust crimes that recent administrations have failed to bring.
4
Warren's "Big Idea" was to falsely claim that she was Native American.
This fueled her professional advancement and political success at the expense of others.
Americans already have too many political leaders with "Big Ideas" to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
4
Unfortunately you, and many others, have been lied to. You have been lied to by the Lee Atwater/Roger Stone school of character assassination. At no time in her life has Elizabeth Warren's ancestry, as told to her by her family, result in any career advancement or influence a hiring decision by any employer. That's just the truth. The GOP continues this false narrative as a preemptive strike against a women the GOP and corporate interests fear because her life is, in fact, the quintessential American story. But they would have you believe she cheated to achieve her success. Take note, when the GOP character assassination squad is rolled out, it is because the victim is a threat to corporations and the ultra wealthy.
11
@jck. Don’t forget that Harvard passed her off as a woman of color. She never objected or corrected them
1
I have always loved and respected Warren but her healthcare side-step is unforgivable. Comparing the USA with other OECD countries, it is quite easy to infer that years of our privately engineered healthcare market failure misdirect - as even Bill Clinton has acknowledged - perhaps 1 TRILLION dollars away from better uses. Canada's docs make $300-$400 K per year yet the country expends about $4000 less per capita on healthcare. Waste, fraud, and abuse here are tacitly endorsed by a compromised government on the take. Addressing 1 TRILLION dollars annually while uniting the country under one plan could the linchpin of a courageous campaign.
5
Canada spends less on healthcare because the Government puts a stranglehold on the purse strings. Qualified surgeons who only are allowed one day a week in the OR . A six to eight month wait for a
hip replacement . One year is the standard wait for cataract surgery
In our small city because of the limitation in the number of procedures
allowed in a time period. This is how you have government paid health care . We regularly receive mail from new Dentists and Optometrists
setting up a practice . Never one from a Family Doctor . The government does not pay for care by dentists or optometrists .My most recent visit to my Family Doctor was just short of 5 weeks - my Bone Density Scan showed some concerning results. I have
documented Osteoporosis . Be very careful what you wish for.
2
No system is perfect but none are as costly and imperfect as ours in the USA. In theory Canadians have the agency to make improvements. In each province you are all together. You have solidarity. I envy that solidarity.
@Eileen Herbert you offer an anecdotal objection to a system that works better for everyone in your country, the statistics don’t lie. And I’ve read many, many anecdotes that belie yours. Medicare for All is the death knell of healthcare profiteers.
1
Excellent piece. You did not mention the name of one of the moving forces in the corporate victory on bankruptcy reform efforts in the 1990s. That would be Joe Biden.
10
Will voters once again buy snake oil or will they hold out for substance. Elizabeth Warren exudes substance but voters will need to make an effort to see through the Republican smokescreen. If the economy falters next year voters may become more attentive to her message. Even if it does not, the message must be that 99% percent of the benefits go to the 1%.
13
Certainly true that Warren has a sensible and popular economic agenda, and thank god the wealth tax will soon be on everyone's list. But beating Trump is the most important "reform" that a person can accomplish, and I think Warren has the self-inflicted wound of her stretched Native-American ancestry, which may be mortal. Her best ideas will survive with another, stronger candidate, and like Bernie in 2016 she will move some big ideas into the mainstream. I hope they are BOTH satisfied with that role, and if they are sincere they should be, while stepping aside EARLY for a candidate who can crush the Deplorables and their dictator....
2
Our brand of Capitalism in the US is dooming our children and those of the rest of the world to live in a crowded hothouse.
I want us to consider how every major action will effect the environment for the next century and legislate according. Sadly, few governments do that, and Socialist ones seem no better than us at it.
2
My wife and I are well off but not super wealthy. I am hoping to retire by 70. One thing scares me about many of the “progressives,” the idea about taxing portfolios annually. While it sounds like a good idea, it actually penalizes people like us who lived frugally all our lives and saved and invested. Sometimes we got it right and a stock increased in value but there were times that we got it wrong. We understood the risks before investing and chose to take a chance. The stock my wife purchased and received during her career declined 95% in value. She paid tax on that stock when she received it because it was current income. A scheme to tax our portfolio would be another dagger. I am so tired of politicians on the right and left promising tax reductions. What I know is that every time in the last 40 years that taxes were “reduced,” my tax bill increased. A plague on both their houses. I was and always be an independent because I know only one rule that remains constant — every candidate will lie through their teeth to get elected and gain power which is their real goal.
9
@Baltimore Eagle Is your portfolio over $50 million? If not, the proposed wealth tax doesn't touch you at all.
2
A great article by David Leonhardt. One part that really strikes home is where he says that the consistent decline of middle class salaries in real terms over the past decades helped give rise to the election of Donald Trump. What an irony that Trump, who does not care about the welfare of the middle class but only about his own wealth and of minimizing the tax obligations of the very rich, was elected by the very group that would be most harmed by his presidency.
He did so by cleverly tapping into the fears and prejudices of those who believe that immigrants are responsible for the country’s social and economic ills, that he will build a big wall to keep them out, that he would force foreign countries to bow to America’s will so that he would make America great again. The big question is when the huge lie will be discovered by his loyal followers. Maybe never, which makes his political career all the more diabolical.
21
Stating the obvious, I will take any one of the current Democratic candidates running for the office of President over Trump. I think it would be great if all of those running, not nominated as the candidate for President, were placed in Cabinet positions with a wide latitude of independence and implementation of policies for the betterment of our society and the world. They all have areas of policy they are passionate about. Senator Warren, if not nominated would make a great Secretary of the Treasury or of Commerce.
13
We in theory have a free enterprise system, which is different from capitalism. Free enterprise presumes equal participants and thus the cost of goods is just enough to produce a profit giving society the best goods at the lowest prices. Capitalism is the combination of wealth with limited liability to encourage investment. Capitalism when it is successful wants to dominate a market and kill competition, leading to monopoly and oligopoly. Thus is economics 101. Only the government can regulate and be the referee to make sure capitalism comes close to free enterprise. That's why Republicans hate government and government regulations. Simple as that.
10
@dave
Nothing about free enterprise assumes equal participants.
In fact - > There is no such thing. So....
I would vote for anybody who could end the era of “shareholder-value maximization" and I'm speaking as a stock holder with a very nice portfolio. Having money does not make up for the decline of my country. You get a race to the bottom when all that counts is the bottom line.
32
Actually Bernie also wants to fix capitalism. The difference between his approach and Warren's is that she wants to ramp up the regulatory state and Bernie wants to shift some key areas where the market has failed to the public side of the ledger.
Health care is the most obvious. Free tuition is another. If you look at how we addressed the post WWII housing crisis and how little we've done for the current crisis, it's clear that there's a key role for the public sector to play, just as it did 70 years ago.
Warren believes with a bit of tweaking and careful oversight capitalism will go back to its 'golden age of the 1950's and 60's.
Bernie has seen that ebb and flow in his lifetime and thinks, I believe correctly, that there are certain basic human services, health, education, housing access and transportation that can only serve the public interest if they are under public control.
So, Bernie's 'social democracy' is really a mixed economy, just mixed in different ratios than it is now.
4
Ms. Warren is to me the most qualified candidate in terms of background, experience, understanding of the financial aspects of our current economic disaster(for most) Americans and what is needed to correct this situation. Also she is young enough to appeal to a broad swath of voters.
I am hoping. May she be the next POTUS, with Mr. Sanders as V.P.
11
@Allan Dochert. Not with Bernie as VeeP, but Mayor Pete - another super intelligent candidate with reasonable ideas presented in an articulate and thoughtful manner who would appeal to the young voters.
8
@Allan Docherty
No. Cory Booker
1
I've always thought that if the government is going to insist that mothers who receive public assistance must work, as our laws do, then it simply must provide child care as a matter of simple fairness and practicality. I applaud Senator Warren for her proposal, which has the potential to lift people out of poverty. I haven't decided which candidate to support, and it is still early. But Senator Warren has always impressed me.
14
Like any unregulated system, an unregulated capitalist system would soon, perhaps too soon will become a runaway system that starts to damage itself and its environment. Think about it, any system you can think of, including the human creations are regulated in some ways so that it functions properly. The orbit of the planets are regulated, the rotation of the Earth is too. The stereo system you use can get out of whack and start creating feedback noise. Your blood pressure needs to be regulated, so does your level of sugar, cholesterol.
Why on earth are we still tolerating an unregulated economic system that has shown time and again a capacity to do serious damage to itself and to the society?
Gordon Gecko, a movie character, was wrong. Greed is NOT good, but regulation is. For all involved. Let's roll!
11
At the risk of raining on the Warren parade, it is worth mentioning that there is scant -- if any -- research confirming that universal pre-K programs have any lasting influence on educational attainment. It of course sounds like such a marvelous idea. But in the United States, for many obvious reasons, the effects of poverty and poor public education all but erase any intellectual and emotional growth of youngsters in pre-K programs.
And there are other Democratic candidates who equal if not surpass Warren's economic prescriptions. Amy Klobuchar, for one, wants to introduce measures to limit corporate mergers and takeovers that lessen market competition and negatively impact consumer choice.
These are issue differences well worth discussion, without the news media picking the winners and ignoring the other candidates this early in the election cycle.
8
@PaulB67
It just makes sense to me that allowing Pre-K kids to mingle and get used to others is a sensible idea -- but even more importantly, it gives parents in dual-income families (of which there are many now) a safe and healthy "baby-sitting" option. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The term baby-sitting is probably not helpful here, but if this was done right, and Pre-K centers were properly run and maintained (and regulated), I think in the long run our country could become a better place.
12
It doesn't mean that pre-K is a bad idea, it means that we also need to improve education and alleviate poverty.
4
@PaulB67
Is Amy Klobuchar not familiar with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890?
3
While Elizabeth Warren has some original and progressive economic ideas, she rarely discusses the number 1 issue for much of America's youngest voters: the destruction of our climate. In 2015, I made a couple of lobbying trips with an environmental group to Warren's offices in DC and in Springfield, MA, hoping we could get her to see the strong connections between corporate power and the industrial energy industry. This is still not something she talks about, even in the midst of the growing threat to the future.
Creating a sustainable economy is necessary for survival of life on the planet, and we need to begin this process yesterday. Bernie Sanders has been sounding the warning bell about climate. Remember how he was mocked in 2016 in the first Democratic debate for citing climate change as the greatest threat to the future, when Hillary Clinton and the other candidates all stated ISIS as our greatest threat?
Hopefully, Warren paid attention to the world Youth Climate Strike on Friday. Some of us will be waiting to see what she has to say.
4
One of the first things I would do is to change the definition of "Capitalism" as the driving force of our economy.; It is the "Free Market system". Capitalism is really about moving large money around for large corporate investments, not a bad thing, but it needs regulation and to some degree socialization. Amazon is a great business and like Sears a century earlier allows people to access rare goods in rural areas. But it disrupts smaller entities, even Sears. Free market allowed Amazon to start and grow, Capitalism allowed it to become giant. Two thirds of our economy is in small business entities where much innovation is, not always in the giants. The giants also get to call the shots, because the are "too big to fail" and they are big enough to influence demand, like Apple does. So divide the world into the "big" and the "commons". Restore our social contract. The Big and distant should be admired but not given all the power and all influence at the expense of the local and small that we can touch and feel.
11
@William Trainor Well said! I would only add that the "Free Market system" is so manipulated by special interests that it is anything but "Free."
5
Too big to fail = Too big to exist
1
I find it fascinating that you praise Elizabeth Warren's ideas so strongly and then repeatedly imply she may not be the right candidate. Though she may have difficulty winning over those who paint her with labels rather than taking time to listen to her, Having heard her speak in person I feel she is the best candidate in the field by far. Rather than resorting to sayings like "Medicare for All" she makes concrete proposals and has a plan for improving this country and the lives of the people in it. Every time I read an article about Beto O'Rourke I cringe that a candidate who did nothing as a state representative and can't seem to articulate any real policies is liked because he reminds people of Kennedy and gets his teeth cleaned. And I cringe when people praise Kamila Harris who can't answer questions directly, has no original proposals and has a questionable history as a prosecutor when she is only considered a viable candidate because she is a woman and a person of color. Elizabeth Warren is the real deal and should be President. Though I'm beginning to wonder if a Sanders/Warren ticket now might be the better ticket to beat Trump, with Warren working on policy with congress for four years and then becoming president.
13
@Robert Rechtschaffen
You had me going with your recognition of Elizabeth Warren's ideas for sane economic policies ... but then when you slipped in the idea that she should sign up as Bernie Sanders' VP running mate I gagged.
Bernie is a one-trick pony -- castigating "millionaires and billionaires" with a fervor that makes you think he'd lead a march of angry citizens to march on Washington with torches and pitchforks -- like that would do any good. Many of his ideas are aspirational, but highly unlikely to make it through the trenches of the lobbyist war zone. I see Bernie as a bomb thrower, not a serious leader. Angry old man.
You want some real excitement among the troops out there? Think about a ticket with Elizabeth Sanders and Stacey Abrams on it. Whoo boy !!! And put some real emphasis on switching the majority in the Senate -- a major roadblock to repairing all that is wrong in America today.
2
The silver bullet to "fix capitalism" is to remove the corporate shield to individual responsibility and accountability. If executive team and corporate board individuals were personally held financially and criminally accountable for the misdeeds of the organizations they operate, bad corporate behavior would diminish significantly. Fining a company billion of dollars - 10s or 100s of billions - does very little to change corporate behavior if the individuals responsible for corporate decision-making are themselves not really affected: if you're making 100 million as a CEO, foregoing your 10 million dollar bonus is not exactly devastating. But maybe 20 years in jail and forfeiting 75% of your total wealth might catch your attention.
As long as the corporate shield exists corporate misdeeds will continue.
21
The economic debate this time is about K-waves, long—50 to 60 year—economic cycles that drive prosperity. We’re at the end of the information and telecommunications wave and starting the sustainability wave. There are millions of jobs spinning up in renewable energy, clean water production and carbon abatement and they are spawning new industries. We’re not going to fix what’s here now, we need to pave over it. It’s happening too, right now.
4
“Politics is not an expertise competition. The nominee should be ... the candidate who best inspires voters.” Hmmm. We desperately need expertise! If only the voters were inspired by expertise. Maybe they would be with more articles like this that actually explain candidates’ ideas. Unfortunately most voters are tuned to Fox News, where that sure doesn’t happen. Inspired voters are great as long as they aren’t inspired by ignorance, lies, and hate.
12
Could you imagine her as a Secretary of the Treasury? Wall Street would have a collective heart attack.
7
@Andy Makar
What exactly does the Treasury Department do that directly affects individual Wall Street firms? The agencies with regulatory authority over firms on Wall Street are the SEC, FINRA, and the NY Fed.
2
I'm for the "social" in socialism.
Elizabeth Warren astounds me from time to time with her brilliant focus on what matters and what can be done about it. I am so sick of "popularity", cosmetic media value, and not being able to overcome a Trumpian insult fest dictating our choice.
Elizabeth Warren is right for you and for me. Go Liz!!!
40
Ms. Warren is totally authentic. She must have “had her a beer” before positing them.
3
I think we need to ask Sherrod Brown to reconsider his decision not to run.
4
And, let’s be super ambitious on climate change for if we are not then all else is for naught. A national carbon fee and dividend is the way to start: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
3
Sadly, Senator Warren is the only candidate totally on top of all the big picture with enough smarts, integrity and caring for all the people to truly address the evils that the Trump imitation of an admin has hit the world on the head with.
People, this lady is Savvy. She is super strong with moral integrity. She is not some pretty faced photo op. She is not a johnny come lately to the real issues, she was fighting for the real people when Clinton was in there. She had more smarts than Obama, she knew that Wall St could not be trusted to totally look out for all the people and Tim Gaithner proved that. Obama was not the catastrophe of "W" but anyone would seem a miracle worker (except Trump) after "W".
Dr Paul Kruger has often applauded her understanding of all the economics facts and that alone is some accomplishment. Paul is not known for his applauding politicians.
President Teddy Roosevelt saw the shape of the US trusts and knew that he had to do something drastic, it took courage and he corrected the oligarchs of his day and the US totally excelled as a result until Hoover undid it.
Senator Warren is our "Go to Person" if we want really good changes for the people, all of them.
We also have to learn from the Robert Kennedy Assassination & make sure she gets adequate protection in these times of rampant Trump inspired hate. All declared candidates deserve extra protection @ all time.
Also protect the most powerful person in the world, Greta Thunberg, She is targete
13
Lobby is Bribery. Fixing capitalism must first get rid of the ability to bribe the government into compliance with corporate greed.
19
@Naomi Aldort you are correct and I am totally on board with elimination of lobbying as it exists. Anyone can contact a member of Congress with their opinions, but without any sort of monetary support or gifts. Opinions only.
3
@Naomi Aldort. Agreed. Lobbyists can talk all they want, sell their ideas, lie, cheat and steal. But zero contributions to politicians: no money, no meals, no sports tickets, no ads, nothing.
2
Total Big Government control over the economy isn’t “fixing”, it’s socialism
@Larry
"Total Big Government control over the economy” is not socialism, it is totalitarianism.
BTW - the US already has many, many laws and regulations governing the behavior of our free markets. Many, if not most, of these controls favor large corporations, the stock market, and major industries. Warren is suggesting that these laws and regulations be modified to support improving the finacial lot of the middle class, who do not earn enough money to capitalize (pun intended) on some of the same benefits afforded big business.
4
@Larry
Total control of the economy by a few unelected corporate bosses isn't "freedom", it's called fascism (Mussolini's own definition of it). Also, Warren isn't calling for "Big Government" control over the economy. Finally, if the abuses that caused the economic well being of the majority of the country to decline aren't addressed, there will be a much more severe reaction to the current system than just "reform." That's right, out come the pitchforks and worse.
Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate for prsident. Articulate, smart, engaged, diplomatic. She suffers, as did HRC, from an incurable defect, being a woman. And the only thing worse than being a woman is being a SMART woman, who doesn't give men their proper deference. She's wonkish? Haven't you had enough of the ignorant running the country? Strident, someone here said. Ah...when was the last time a man was called strident? Let me think...Never. I think a level playing field is what is required; it isn't that hard to be conscious of misogyny. And don't get me going on US anti-intellectualism. More than anything else, it's the reason the US is palpably going down the drain.
25
Get the women out to vote against this vicious gop and trump travesty which is driving our country into third world status. The women of America hold the key to the to the survival of the real America, the one that values people over money, get out there and vote for Elizabeth Warren!
3
Elizabeth Warren is an extremist with bad ideas. Her idea to break up tech companies is absurd and would be destructive. What is the point of breaking up Facebook? Into what? Breaking up the Amazon marketplace would hurt - the small businesses that sell on it. She has no idea how it works. She also made the ludicrous assertion Apple shouldn't be allowed to sell apps in its own app store. REALLY? She is starting to sound like a Marxist. I hope a less extreme candidate can win the Democrat nomination.
2
@Dave
"Into what?"
Smaller discrete units that would have less control over the massive amounts of private data and fewer ways to individually impact public life and corporate power over consumers.
"Breaking up the Amazon marketplace would hurt"
Braking up Amazon doesn't inherently mean eliminating subsidiary units like Marketplace.
"Apple shouldn't be allowed to sell apps in its own app store"
Nothing particularly novel in that. Vertical integration has been a concern addressed by our antitrust laws since the Clayton Act.
"starting to sound like a Marxist"
Hyperbole or not, you may want to brush up on your understanding of economic and political theory. Nothing Warren has proposed even comes close to suggesting the collective ownership of the means of production, long-term goals of the termination of the state, or even a hint of class-based rebellion against the excesses of Capital.
3
She has to stop it first.
David Leonhardt is a thoughtful investigator and writer. But I am troubled a bit by the superficiality of this observation:
"Politics is not an expertise competition. The nominee should be, and most likely will be, the candidate who best inspires voters." Voila--and we have--Donald Trump.
3
Warren has left out the tough one.
Our planet is collapsing upon us.
Economic outcomes with negative social and/or ecological value immediately need to be recognized. Negative Externalities need to be measured and priced in up front so as to discourage, temper, or at the extreme eliminate investment.
Negative external costs and positive incentives must be built into every investment decision. And these costs and incentives must be applied to every human economic activity from the mine to the chemistry lab to the assembly line to the opera house to the athletic field to the hospital at the time of entry into the market.
Every investment decision must be internally priced to reflect its socially constructive or destructive outcome. Croplands, grasslands, forests, fisheries, inorganic resources; all of the earth’s natural resources, must be internally priced so as to prevent their exploitation and damage to the planet.
In our present world, none this is happening on a broad enough scale to make a difference. We see punitive cigarette and liquor taxes and some others like them, but across the board, any form of build-in of “negative external” cost reflecting ecological considerations is almost nil. Disincentives/Incentives in vital areas like energy are being very poorly handled or not at all. The most simple questions such as; is this or that delivering real worth to society and to the health of the planet are being avoided.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
5
The second to the last paragraph can be summed up as two rules that all candidates would be wise to follow:
1) Avoid social issues;
2) Emphasize economic issues.
9
@JamesEric Thing is, is it the economic issues that drive social issues and visa versa? I say the latter: our economic issues stem largely from a lack of moral - read social - compass. But whose compass? Pro-life, pro-choice, pro LGBTQ, anti-LBGTQ, etc., etc., etc.
1
The only reason I don't consider the Democratic candidates abysmal is that at this absurdly early point, I'm still waiting for all but one (named Warren) to propose something with substance.
Teddy Roosevelt saved American capitalism from its own self-induced gilded age of robber barons. He saved the very concept of the free market by forcing the market to tie itself to the welfare of all the people and all freedoms (individual and economic). The restored serfdom experienced in America following the Civil War's ending of Jefferson's notion of the self-sufficient citizen farmer would have produced the same global apocalypse seen in Europe had it not been for TR's unique slant on economic reorganization.
Elizabeth Warren appears to be arriving on the scene just in nick of time.
25
Part of the problem with America is that we perpetuate the story that anyone through hard work and a creative outlook is upwardly mobile. So many want an economic environment that is achiever friendly, even though, realistically, most will never actually achieve their goals.
Perhaps if people had a more realistic assessment of their lot in life, they would fight harder to make it better.
10
Thank you for this most informative article that presents Ms. Warrens proposals in an understandable format for layman such as myself. Ms. Warren is the only candidate who has layed out her agenda with detailed propsals with out concern for political repercussions. I dont know if she has my vote but for what it's worth she sure does have my respect. Mr. Leonrards explanations make her proposals more palatable to me in contrast to my original perceptions of more democratic excess and enabling excuses.
14
Right on! The Presidential campaign is the best opportunity for candidates to inform and inspire the nation. In this new gilded age, the Democratic candidates must create bold and creative policy ideas to deal with the social and income inequalities that threaten the fabric of our society.
They should have confidence that these bold ideas may shape the future and lead to a Democratic renaissance as they restore a more promising future for a majority of Americans. We know the Republicans will offer only tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and the corporate state and deregulation.
They will disguise the reactionary nature of their economic agenda with nationalistic appeals and religious right ideals and be against immigrants, the welfare state, and abortion and for guns and traditional values. This gave us Trump. Hopefully the American public will see through their canard and choose a progressive economic program of change and hope for a better future.
12
I like Warren's laser focus on economic equality because it resonates with so many people, especially those who have not benefited from the wealth that's been generated. She's nailed a populist issue. She's not a one-note candidate and can be expected to address other pressing issues, as well. I'm 80 years old and was much healthier and more vigorous when I was her age. She's up to the job that needs to be done.
10
Much as I like the general thrust of Warren's campaign, I'm a little disappointed at her failure to include climate change as one of the priority issues on her website. Maybe she's still trying to figure out how to weave some strands of the Green New Deal into her platform.
3
"Stevenson (Adlai) was once approached by a young woman supporter, the first time that he decided to run for the president’s post. She said, “Governor, every thinking person would be voting for you”. He retorted, “Madam, that is not enough. I need a majority.”
This is the second reason Warren will never be elected president. Stevenson lost twice--largely because he was perceived as an "egghead". Americans have long displayed a strong distaste for intellectuals--even more so today than 60 years ago.
The first reason is that America is not yet ready for a woman president, particularly in a race against Trump.
Who's my candidate? Sadly--I have no answer. It would be Warren by a large margin, but as usual, I have to abandon my true preference and consider "electability".
9
@bobg, It is sad that you believe educated people are unelectable. We need highly educated people in both Congress and the presidency more than ever now.
It does speak volumes that the dumbest person in Congress (Louie Gohmert R-TX) keeps getting re-elected despite his inherent stupidity.
We do need people who are willing to do the hard lift of creating, voting and signing legislation that helps a majority of the populous instead of the status quo where only large corporations and the top 10% of income earners get the majority of the perks of being in the USA.
I know too many people who are struggling just to have enough food to eat. They have been left behind in terms of economic success and many of them actually did try to do the "right" thing by getting an education, and often a college degree or higher.
Where I live the cost of living is atrocious. Few jobs pay more than $13 an hour, rents are high($1000 a month for a 1 BD apt) housing is high (average of about 300k), and groceries are much higher than what it was in the midwest where I used to live. The poverty rate in my county stands at about 27% here in the inland Pacific Northwest. For most who live here, moving costs money that most people don't have. Many I know don't even have a car that they could go elsewhere with. They are in essence stuck.
I wholeheartedly want someone like Elizabeth Warren as the Democratic nominee. We need new ideas put forward for the good of the nation.
14
Why is warren not electable? Because of people like you. Stand up and be counted for someone who has fresh ideas and experience.
2
Dear David,
Your underlying premise is that to fix our economic problems requires even more government interference. If Senator Warren is sincere about imposing a wealth tax, she should lower the threshold to say, one million dollars. In that way she can feel the sting of her own proposal.
3
@hm1342
So you think someone with $4 million in wealth has the same power and influence as someone with $4 billion? You really don’t see the difference?
10
@BK: "So you think someone with $4 million in wealth has the same power and influence as someone with $4 billion?"
Mr. Leonhardt said that Warren's tax would start at $50 million. There's no mention how she arrived at that number unless it represents the lower end of the top 0.1 percent of income earners. Do you think someone whose worth $50 million has as much power and influence as someone worth $4 billion?
Senator Warren's net worth is anywhere between $5 and $18 million depending on your source. The point is there is no way she would ever lower the wealth tax so she would be included in it, no matter her level of personal wealth.
She would be included if her worth reached 150 millions, right?
"The main theme in her life, both professional and personal, has been economic opportunity." She is better qualified than most candidates to discuss it. I've read some of her books and her writing is clear, forthright, and gives the reader a look at what once was and now is not.
Both parties used to work for all Americans. Both parties used to compromise to help all Americans, not just the richest Americans. But that was when we had veterans serving in Congress. Now we have spoiled children running things. We have a spoiled child in the White House, one who was too afraid of mixing with the peasants to get drafted. This same child has cost Americans jobs, well being, and hope. The GOP has continued its 8 year temper tantrum even though their party controls the Senate and the White House.
All that "socialism" and "nanny state" that conservatives rant against is for show. They love it when there are government handouts for mega-corporations at consumer expense. They prefer to lecture Americans on how to live instead of seeing what their policies are doing to our lives. I'm 60 years old. I'm a skilled worker in IT. My age is why I'm not being hired. So is my experience. I had 18 years experience 20 years ago when I left pharmaceutical research. Nothing has changed.
If we want to have decent lives we need to stop electing people like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz. We need to elect people who have not grown up wealthy.
39
@hen3ry
They’re supposedly against crony capitalism until a Democrat runs on actually ending crony capitalism.
3
She's smart and could hit the ground running, but I don't believe she can beat Trump. She's a woman and U.S. voters are not ready for a woman president. (There. I said it.) And some of her policy proposals will throw mega tons of money to the Republicans. Finally, she's too nice to effectively stand up to the ugly onslaught we know will be coming from trump no matter who the D candidate is. I believe she can get as many, or more of her proposals through with a Democratic Congress (and president) as she could if she were president.
1
US capitalism if it needs fixing the fix it needs is much less obstruction. States put massive hurdles to small business, as does the feds.
3
@vulcanalex. Some states put up fewer barriers to business than others. Those states with lower taxes and fewer barriers are gaining population at the expense of high tax states
3
@Larry
My state has a growing population and a progressive tax system.
5
@J Bean The middle class has been driven out of California by high taxes. Only the rich and illegals remain. Outmigration from California is huge
Presidential Campaign is time for debate about problems in the nation, like inequality. To accomplish it we need GOP to expose its ideas. I wonder GOP may deny existence of inequality problem, and the debate will be a “debate”.
1
@hadanojp I am not the GOP but inequality is only an issue when obtained illegally or perhaps immorally. Like say buying your way into an elite college, or rigging things through laws that restrain competition. Earned inequality is not only acceptable, but what capitalism is all about. Be lazy and incompetent you probably will be poor, the opposite and you can become wealth.
1
40 years after the New Deal taxes on extreme wealth sometimes went to 90%. So the wealthy reinvested some of that wealth back into the economy and therefore back into the Nation. And America was humming right along. Creating the biggest and most secure middle class human history has ever known.
We have socialism now in America, and most of the benefits go to the wealthy elites. So the republican scold about "socialism" rings hollow; which does not mean they will not whine about it at every opportunity.
But with all the voices in the campaign hinting at a wider dispersal of benefits words like socialism will start to lose some bad meaning and start to sound pretty good to more and more people.
Sanders and Warren are not the reincarnation of Mao Zedong; more like the reincarnation of FDR.
17
@Larry Socialism implies government ownership of the means of production. Neither Warren Saunders or I believe the rest of the Democratic field are advocating that. The system we have now, if you want to call it that, is not working for the majority of the people, only the uber rich. And is not sustainable. So the GOP proposes more of the same, how is that going to work out?
5
@Bob Laughlin except that the fantasy you describe never happened. WW2 ended the Depression, and after WW2 the nations of Europe and Asia were recovering from the destruction of WW2 so industry had nowhere to go but the undamaged factories of America. The socialism pushed by Warren and Sanders and the rest of the Democrats has failed everywhere everytime it has been tried.
2
The problem is ‘capitalists’ are no longer capitalists. They see taxes and labor supply and demand as the enemy rather than part of the system, cost of doing business. They simply want a feudal society not true capitalism.
27
What capitalists always want is monopoly.
15
@AG: "The problem is ‘capitalists’ are no longer capitalists."
So true for many. They are colluding with government for special breaks. We call this "crony capitalism". Here's some neat videos to highlight it:
https://stosselintheclassroom.org/videos/kronies/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGgY5V4YZZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw2cP00zbgQ
1
Of all the candidates to declare so far, Warren has my support, for many of the reasons articulated in Mr Leonhardt’s essay. But I would add two others. First the wealth tax’s principal benefit is not to raise income for new programs, however important they may be. It is to reduce inequality, and for that reason, even if its administrative costs were equal to the revenue captured — the argument usually advanced against it — the wealth tax would be beneficial. Second, in her interview with Mr Leonhardt, she gave a short, compelling argument for why government regulation and oversight is necessary. Even if most capitalists are honest, well-meaning people, if there is no cop on the beat to catch those who cheat, who have no scruples about the damage they do to society, the honest businesspeople find that they cannot compete without emulating the cheaters. It becomes a race to the bottom.
As for Mr Leonhardt’s two concerns about a Warren candidacy, I no longer feel that the most inspirational candidate makes the best president. I have no confidence in American voters who gravitate toward candidates for all the wrong reasons and elevate superficiality over substance. If we are to solve our problems, we need a smart, evidence-based policy by a candidate who has the energy to push them through. And I support worker presence on corporate boards, because it brings transparency to corporate policies and will represent workers over shareholders and executives.
32
Mr. Leonhardt's closing paragraph echoes William Clark's advice to the graduates of the Sapporo Agricultural College (now Hokkaido University) in 1877. He is an honored and his statue grace the campus of the university. It was never removed during World War II. He remains a nationally known figure in Japan while unknown in his own country. His final words to his students were, "Boys, be ambitious! Be ambitious not for money or for selfish aggrandizement, not for that evanescent thing which men call fame. Be ambitious for that attainment of all that a man ought to be." Remember, this was 1877 Japan. You may also wish to read John Maki's excellent biography.
6
"Presidential campaigns are the time for big ideas."
That works for everybody. Implementing them, assuming they can work, that is another issue.
Campaign promises? How often are they really fulfilled?
1
@Joshua Schwartz When say Trump makes them? Or at least he tries when congress needs to help.
1
You have to start somewhere.
For most of the US, the costs of healthcare and housing, and a livable wage are interconnected, arguably inseparable.
When patients show up at the ER and they don't have insurance that works for them, the market (consumers) absorbs those higher, late-stage patient care costs which the insurance companies pass along to their customers. The system today is based on activity, not results/prevention and this is why the US healthcare system went from a ranking of 6th in the 1990's to 27th in 2018
Health Insurance companies control the money distribution, after paying for bonuses, stock grants and executive salaries they are aggressively controlling what they spend on patient care or what health insurance companies call "medical loss."
According to CMS, in 2017 "17.9%" of GDP is spent on healthcare and for the lower income families this impact is a disproportionately large percent of their income, leaving little for rent, food, or clothing.
We can rest easily knowing that the health insurance companies are making billions of dollars and spending a lot of those healthcare dollars on campaign contributions and astro-turf lobbying efforts (as opposed to genuine grass roots lobbying) aimed at spreading misinformation about health care system innovation and making sure that they don't spend too much on patient care.
If you want to learn about health insurance company priorities, consider reading Deadly Spin by Wendell Potter.
12
@NonPoll So stay healthy (which most actually do) and your health care costs are very low.
1
Corporations get big by giving lots of people a good or service that they’ll voluntarily exchange money for. Government gets big by taking. It’s obvious we need more big corporations and less big government
3
Your premise is incorrect. An example: we had a market called Bread and Circus. They had great produce and healthy food offerings. They were bought out by Whole Foods and the quality, while still okay, went down. Whole Foods was bought by Amazon and I won't even shop there any more. At no stage in the process of degradation of quality did consumers have any input.
6
@JM consumers have no input? As you yourself said, you no longer shop at the store when quality went down. That’s input. That’s the free market at work.
2
Yeah, it only works if there is the opportunity to replace the bad quality with better one at comparable prices. Of all stores got bought by Amazon, you don't have no much choice but put up with bad quality, that's how we got most expensive healthcare of mediocre quality. As matter of fact capitalism works very hard to decrease free market. Capitalist are benefiting most from the monopolies that's why all their efforts are directed to become a monopoly or at least major player.
14
Are you crazy, blind, or so far left you no longer have any objectivity. Elizabeth? My God!
3
@jimwjacobs
She want to end crony capitalism. So you support it? Implementation of her ideas isn’t going to destroy everyone in the North Shore.
4
I agree. She is terrific.
However PLEASE print this and listen up Elizebeth.
You need to say you are a compassionate capitalist.
You need to distance yourself from socialism.
You MUST say that strong borders are essential and you will be tough on ILLEGAL immigrants (none of this dreamer talk)
And you will win. If you dont do these things you wont and we could get Trump again.
Please listen to me.
3
@scientella So to get elected, all she needs to do is deny the humanity of billions of people on this earth that were not lucky enough to be born on US soil? Oh and deny the existence of socialism in our diverse economy? Please.
The Democratic campaign motto seems to be “what about me?” “Other people have things I don’t. Let’s take them away and give them to meeeeeeee.” Another four years of Trump for sure.
4
@MyjobisinIndianow Oh please, this old stale right wing canard don't hunt anymore, to mix metaphors. The presumption that the rich have earned every penny that they have is completely false. Inequality is an unfortunate side effect of unbridled capitalism and can overpower a democratic society if left unchecked, as it has ours. We need solutions, not red scare rhetoric from the 1950s.
35
@MyJobIsInIndiaNow
If there were worker representatives on corporate boards, as Warren suggests, your job would still be right here in the USA.
10
@MyjobisinIndianow
No, it’s about personal responsibility, accountability, and ending crony capitalism. Why don’t you support that?
1
Andrew Yang 2020, people!!!!!
2
@Mels - He’ll get my vote if his Vice President is named Ying.
Another pundit who can't see the obvious. Warren has the personality of a wet dishrag. She is unelectable.
3
@David Reality says she was elected to the Senate. What are you basing your opinion on, since the facts state otherwise?
11
She had my vote until she said she supported reparations.
As a white male who grew up dirt poor, worked 60-70 hours a week building a business; attended junior and then state college, (paid by me), while raising a family; always obeyed the law; and now supports 20 employees; I don’t feel the need to share my income with someone else just of their skin color.
The idea of “white advantage” is so ridiculously racist, I hav ego vote against anyone who supports it.
13
@James Madison. Even worse is her support for reparations for Native Americans! How many millions will she claim for herself?
I love Elizabeth Warren and her ideas, but Bernie had them first and took the flack as the point man for them, challenging the pre-ordained nominee Hilary and the DNC poobas. I would be happy with either, as both understand that the biggest problem facing most Americans is having been left behind and ignored while the economy has grown to record heights, even with the Great Recession.
The Democrats need to coalesce around one of these candidates, and while I would love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket, I doubt that will happen. I suspect that Sanders will be done in by the backlash against old white guys, leaving Warren as the best bet, but I'll root for both until one has the nod.
I hope that the progressives that are still wedded to identity politics, and litmus tests, can set that thinking aside and understand that the one unifying thread through all major issues is an economic one. If we can restore the system to how it worked before Reagan and "trickle down" were set against us, everyone's rights will be served. Moreover, we can serve the environment and infrastructure revitalization by creating good paying, sustainable jobs - that's an approach everyone should be able to support. Liz and Bernie understand this, and are both well-qualified to finally end four decades of war on the working and middle class. In the end, it's still as Bill Clinton declared: "It's the economy, stupid!".
6
@Kingfish52
No, Bernie did not have specific ideas about consumer protection. He was not involved in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I like Bernie, but he presents a larger vision, not specific policies in the way Warren does.
21
@BK Getting trapped in the details is one of the things that undid Hilary. Details are fine and necessary, but not on the campaign trail. There, big ideas and broad vision are needed. How many "details" did Trump offer?
People aren't concerned about the trees, as much as they are about the forest.
That said, Warren has a broad vision, but she does need to be careful about becoming too wonkish and lecturing like a professor.
9
@Kingfish52
Warren has not become “trapped in the details.” She presents a vision and details. Maybe you haven’t heard her speak; her speeches involve more vision. She happens to have details and experience working on them that no other candidate, including Clinton previously, has.
19
A lifetime of lying. disqualified. next
4
@FLP if only her deceit was simple lying. She got a high paying job on the false premise of being a minority. That’s Fraud and Theft by Deception. Harvard has a fudiciary duty to claw back her salary and the cost of the perks like free parking, low interest home loan, free football tickets, etc
I am in favor of a 100% tax on anybody with more wealth or income than me.
6
@jrs like Warren wants to ban billionaires from running for office. Millionaires like her can run, just no billionaires
Capitalism is free interactions among free people. Every penny Wal-Mart or Amazon has was voluntarily given in exchange for a good or service. There’s no need to fix that
3
It is not true. Of my salary allows me to afford things from Walmart, I don't have much choice. It is like to have 'free' choice to die from hunger or to become a slave. Yes, it is choice but is it so free? I guess Warren wants to fix the system that each of us has a little bit more of choices, not only between bad and worse.
6
@Larry
FYI-
Capitalism refers to the production of wealth, free market relates to the exchange of wealth in various methods. Capital happens to be an essential basic element for both capitalism and free market economies.
Free competition is not an essential element of capitalism but is of free markets.
Warren is not so much interested in mucking with our free markets. Rather, she is interested in making capital more accessible to middle class business people and entrepreneurs in the interest of creating more competitive free markets.
1
Walmart is one of the most coercive companies in US history. It’s entire strategy is founded on the idea of limiting consumer choice by systematically attacking rural markets, eliminating local retailers by cutting the heart (the fastest moving skus) out each category of merchandise, and driving independent businesses under. I’m not sure a transaction is voluntary if your only alternative to buy groceries is in the next county. In the suburbs, there is sufficient demand density to let Walmart coexist with other retailers who provide better quality and selection; in rural areas, not so much.
Walmart also coerces its employees and suppliers. With employees, they are frequently the only employer left, after driving the small community based retailers out of business, for lesser skilled workers. With suppliers, they have been a major driver in pushing production of consumer durables off-shore, in some cases creating the Asian producers that push US companies out of business, or force them to close US plants and move off-shore themselves.
Capitalism does not need “fixing”. “Fixing” means abolishing the free market and imposing Big Government “solutions” that don’t fix the non-problems they were supposed to
4
And that is bad how? We already saw how big corporations work by holding salaries and denying healthcare while increasing prices for drugs and housing. There must be better system than one that benefits 0.1% on the backs of 90%
13
@yulia Really? People are working at jobs and not getting paid?! Who’s doing this? Details? How stupid are the workers who show up for work but don’t get paid? Everyone benefits from a strong, free, capitalistic economy
If you bother to read the autobiographical sections of Warren's books, you learn that she believes that her childhood -- the happy middle class life to which she was entitled -- was ruined by cold, profit-maximizing decisions by her parents' employers. Hence her foundational belief that SHE, not executives and owners, should determine how businesses must behave.
It's true that in a globally competitive economy unfortunate circumstances, bad luck and poor life choices are punished harshly, and that increasing numbers of Americans are falling behind. The problem with Ms. Warren is that all of her policy prescriptions depend upon slowing down the game and lessening the distinction between winning and losing. For her, mediocre outcomes are fine, if she gets to decide how the output is distributed. If she gains power, she may succeed in making the US economy less efficient and more compassionate or egalitarian. Unfortunately, other nations may continue to pursue efficiency and profit maximization, thereby continuing to outpace us in growth and relative prosperity.
Personally, I would rather see our economic policy aimed at both increasing the efficiency of our businesses and making our citizens better able to compete in a hyper-efficient world economy. Sadly, Ms. Warren and the "it's not your fault" crowd is seemingly offering a kinder, less painful and more effortless panacea, and the failing and desperate among us are eager to eat it up. Fixing capitalism? Not quite!
Didn't they already overcome us in relative prosperity by having better security net?
7
When Warren eliminates the principle of maximizing shareholder value, what will she do when 401ks, IRAs, college savings, pensions and college endowments go bankrupt?
2
They can not go bankrupt, just by their nature.
2
Warren’s plan is to give herself limitless power over every economic interaction. Never mind that she has zero experience in the free market and has zero understanding of how the economy works, she demands unquestioned power! What could go wrong?
1
We all have experience with free market, because we live in this market. So, she has a plenty experience in this area.
16
@yulia for someone who supposedly has experience in the free market, Warren sure is clueless as to how it works. Has she ever run a business?
"Fixing," "Repairing," and "Bold" are the right words, which doesn't mean mindless charges of "Socialism" will stop. It is useful that Senator Warren is pushing the debate on economic policy. But, as we've known in the classroom for decades, and I think David at least somewhat knows as shown in his other columns, there is no economy without protecting ecosystems. It is not a side issue. Economic plans that do not even mention climate change, endangered species, water are conceptually faulty. Instead, these environmental factors (as well as social ones) have to be fully integrated into the economy. There are many ways to do this that only occasionally get attention, although The Green New Deal is breaking through that barrier. It is bold and pretty comprehensive, but even it could be improved with ideas it is missing, such as sustainable business, a carbon tax that bites, payment for ecosystem services in a well-administered market, etc. Senator Warren has the academic background to bring some of these other ideas into her economic thinking, but I don't see why other Dems running for President, as well as Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, couldn't do the same thing. More and more I think mindset barriers are one of the biggest obstacles to addressing our problems. And this is one of the biggest ones; and something we do to ourselves. We just have to expand our thinking and vision about what is possible, and, for the most part, take advantage of what already exists.
5
If we as a country had any semblance of insight and self-awareness about our corporate-dominated Libertarian Dystopia right now, Elizabeth Warren would be an obvious and smart solution to our problems.
I'm not holding my breath. We are in a state of willful ignorance, and there is no sign of it letting up.
20
Warren is by far the smartest policy wonk among all the presidential candidates. Forget about "likeability" or concerns that she's "too polarizing." She gets my vote because she has good sense.
12
@Christy
Could you share the articles Sen. Warren has written that buttress your contention that she is the “smartest policy wonk..” Ms. Clinton was a far more knowledgable and capable “policy wonk” with a demonstrated record extending over decades. Where is Sen. Warren’s record ? Our most successful POTUS have not been “policy wonks”. They’ve been commanding “leaders” able to hire capable staffs. Lincoln comes to mind. So far the record of Sen. Warren remains modest. Whether she can unite the Democratic Party remains unknown. And without a strongly united Party we know the results of 2020 in advance. More of the same.
@Peter I Berman
Warren’s career has been working on consumer protection policies. She’s only worked in politics for seven or eight years. Are you not aware of that? Clinton, from the time she ran for the Senate in 2000, was positioning herself for the Presidency, not focusing on specific policies. This idea that Clinton is a wonk is propaganda. Her ideas are considerably less developed than Warren’s.
11
@Peter I Berman I’m assuming the article that established Warren’s wonk credentials isnt the one where she writes how her Cherokee ancestors made crab dip on the Oklahoma plains
Yes she DOES want to fix capitalism, and she and Bernie are the only ones who do. That's why the mainstream media are desperate for "centrist" candidates like Biden and Beto. At the elite level in the Democratic party Clintonism dies hard. At the popular level, not so much.
23
One giant interest group EW never seems to get around to is the ABA. The largest political contributor by far of any special interest groups. Nothing is costing this country more then the thousands of frivolous lawsuits brought by trail lawyers.
Her whole idea of breaking up large corporations is a sham. Talk about the rich getting richer. Major shareholders (and EW donors) would reap windfall from breakups, much like the breakup of Standard Oil made John Rockefeller the richest man in the world. It would also provide endless lucrative legal business for her lawyer friends.
@mbrody
The American Bankers Association? Yes, she would agree that it’s a problem.
1
I have long believed Elizabeth Warren has hit the nail on the head as far as fixing the horrible inequality that leaves so many Americans frustrated and cynical. Bold ideas are long overdue in addressing the issue of income inequality in America; and thanks to the Koch brothers and others of their ilk who have been rigging the system for decades. Citizens United alone stands as a monumental example of how WALL STREET and corporate America now how virtually strangled the American Dream for everyone but the 1% Oligarch. So let the Democratic Party show some guts and do what Teddy Roosevelt did over 100 years ago. Rein in the capitalist monsters that are devouring democracy every day.
15
The problem with Elizabeth Warren is that she is likely to turn off many independents, who (wrongly) perceive her as too belligerent and extremist; she'll turn off the base, who won't be able to understand or won't care about the highly complex policy proposals that she is planning for; and at the same time she'll fire up the entire right-wing to vote against her just because of the way the Trumpist propaganda has been slowly demolishing her persona for years (Pocahontas! Regulations! Socialism! Elitism! Socialist elitism! - you know what I mean).
In my opinion a charismatic candidate with less baggage (I'm undecided yet, but it could be a Corey Booker or a Kamala Harris) would probably stand a better chance in a general election, and he or she could immediately hire Warren to a powerful cabinet position such as Secretary of Treasury, where she could finally enact her policies.
@Andy
In regards to independents, those in Midwest states that Clinton lost and are blue collar are more likely to support her. She doesn’t focus on the parts of the Democratic platform that resulted in independents choosing Trump.
12
@BK of course not. Warren’s support for reparations and the insane GND is mainstream!
Elizabeth Warren's policy proposals are excellent. The problem is that presidential elections aren't won by candidates with the highest I.Q., or who propose the most enlightened policies. She comes across as the nerdy, idealistic ,smarest girl in the class. Warren lacks the " it " factor. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "I can't define " it", but I know it when I see it". Unfortunately, Warren lacks this dispositive political charisma. American's don't elect presidents without it.( its incredulous, but Trump is actually charismatic to millions ) I'm embarrassed for her over the DNA fiasco, which raises legitimate questions about her judgement. Regrettably, she lacks the gravitas, and "presence" to be elected president, and it has nothing to do with her gender. America is ready to elect a female president, but not Elizabeth Warren.
1
Unfortunately for all of us, Warren already looks like a paper tiger as a candidate. She may have the brains and experience, but she seems every bit as wooden as Hillary and without 90% of the name recognition. I like Warren, and I would gladly vote for her over Donald Trump, but her ideas might be better used by another candidate.
2
@Skyler
I’m not sure if you’ve seen her speak. She’s very different from Clinton. She speaks with much more passion when speaking about the topics that concern her.
13
I'm beginning to like Elizabeth Warren for the same reasons Stephens suggests.
There needs to be a major structural overhaul of the system.
And from what I see, the major complaints about overhauling the system are from people and corporations that have a vested, and significant interest, in keeping the system the way it is.
Another thing. It's time we have a candidate and president that focuses on real domestic economic issues and the areas where capitalism has run amuck..
Our foreign and military entanglements drain us. We have hundreds of bases overseas and we seem to want to stick our noses in a lot of places we don't belong.
So, I want a candidate that pulls back from our world policing, and focus on programs and policies that Warren is talking about.
Otherwise, we will continue to tinker around the edges and nothing of substance we change.
But, be ready for the big blow-back from the vested interests. I can almost see the T.V. ads now.
16
In 2016, the NYTimes made it a policy to ignore Bernie Sanders until his victories made that no longer possible. Is David Leonhardt's article a reprise of that sorry performance? I mean, how is it possible not to mention Bernie Sanders in an article such as this -- not even once?
How is it possible to write a sentence such as, "So far, only one candidate among the 2020 contenders has an agenda with this level of ambition: Elizabeth Warren," without even mentioning the ambition of Bernie Sanders' agenda? How is it possible not to mention that, according to polls, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US, or that according to the most recent nationwide poll of Democratic voters, 27% expressed preference for Sanders (2nd place to Biden who had 31%) and Warren came in 5th at 7%? And yet Sanders is not even mentioned. I smell something fishy!
9
"Her plans are also much more detailed than those of Bernie Sanders (who, to his credit, pushed the party to become bolder)."
10
I'm happy to read this in-depth article about Elizabeth Warren. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two candidates of substance running - Warren and Sanders. The rest are either Republican lite or pretend change agents. We can no longer afford such phonies.
18
Warren is a brilliant economist but she has already stumbled out of the gate. She foolishly took Trump’s bait in getting a DNA test. The near-universal mockery of her “findings” has now led her to double down by calling for reparations for Native Americans — hardly the most pressing or inspiring issue of the day. She needs to keep her eyes on the prize, pushing her fiscally sound progressive agenda with laser-focused determination, because she certainly won’t win the brutal game of political skullduggery.
5
@Josh Siegel
She is not an economist. She’s a lawyer who understands how specific laws impact people. Economists have little understanding of this.
7
Mr. Leonhardt, thanks for this clear,incisive ,policy centered column. Warren and her ideas have not changed much in the last ten years or more; and they are still relevant and applicable. She is this Democrat's first choice.
It was also nice to read about issues and just issues; perhaps in your next column ,we could learn about her foreign relations ideas.
Perhaps if more articles dealt with just issues instead of race handicapping, the people might be better informed.
11
She has never run anything. Breaking up big companies is not the answer.
2
What is the answer? Letting the big companies to run our Government?
5
David: Your interview with Ms. Warren on The Argument was too soft and too friendly. You are a more thoughtful and incisive journalist than that. Ask the hard questions.
2
Ideas worth pondering, agree or disagree with it. But if the NYT commenters think that this is how you win elections, it only means that, indeed, we have a hard time learning the obvious.
Good candidates win, hopefully with good ideas. But bad candidates with the best ideas lose.
Remember that Trump, a charlatan without ideas and held together by resentment and contempt, managed to win the election. I am not sure how smart is a liberal electorate that cannot get the hint.
2
No way. Not when she calls herself a Native American and she really isn't. What kind of rationale come to decide to do that?
3
If she’s not the Democratic presidential candidate, then I hope she’s selected as the Treasury secretary in the next administration.
6
Charles Reich Opposing the System should be republished. I will help if anybody wants to do so.The review of the book by Francis Fukuyama was another mistaken book review which missed his diagnosis of the country's future.
1
Ideally, I'd like to see Warren as SecTreas or ChiefEconAdv. But under whom? With the implosion of Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown deciding not to run, it's a very, very thin field. A lot of aspirants, but not much to be inspired by. Most are in the "Are you kidding?" or "Maybe in the future, but likely not" categories. In that thin field, she looks good by comparison. But let's be realistic - very realistic. Will this country elect a woman with an image of a scolding aunt? I have serious doubts. Job One is to dump Trump.
3
And who could achieve it?
Would Sen. Warren qualify to manage a small Wal Mart or Rite Aid ? If not how would she ever manage to understand the dynamics of American capitalism and role of large public firms in our economy ? Any more than Lenin did ? Amerian 20th century Capitalism periodically adjusted has been the wonder of the world. Without “fixes” by poorly informed/educated politicians wanting to make “improvements”. Best if we continue to work onthe margins. Not make wholesale “adjustments”.
4
So, we are not Switzerland, we are Walmart?
“A lot of people don’t believe you can actually make any change on economics,” Warren says.
As Richard Wolff, Americas most famous Marxist economist, has pointed out, you can fix a capitalist economy over and over again, but no sooner has the ink dried on the new reforms, the people with all the power, the capitalist, start re-rigging the system to their advantage. That's why fixing capitalism is endless and people are right to believe you can't make any lasting change; the ruling rich elite have all the power.
4
Compare Biden and Warren in your column. Does he want to fix the economy? You wrote about him so nicely last week. Is he more ‘practical’ than Warren?
I emailed Warren's web site to use this slogan for her campaign---to restore what America once had--namely “Representation For Our Taxation”. That was the demand of the American colonists, rebelling against King George the 3rd and rule by aristocrats.
That should be the demand of today's American middle and working class, to assert its rights in what was once a great democracy.
Today we rebel against King Donald the 1st and his courtiers and his fondness for dictators. We rebel against our 21st century dukes and earls ---the corporate mega donors ruling our legislatures, whose campaign money is blessed as ‘free speech’ by our revered highest court.
NYTimes columns seem to avoid the big money cause/effect of the problems they write about. Taboo in our media norms? Then we are not a free country, despite our 1st Amendment.
2
As capitalist, I'd be interested how she became a multimillionaire on a modest professor salary.
3
@HozeKing
She has worked at one of the most elite universities for many years. I’m sure you know that Harvard Law School does not pay modest salaries. Why would they pay the same as Indiana State when each professor could make considerably more at a big law firm? In addition, it’s not a public university.
5
@HozeKing. In 2010-2011, he Harvard salary and consulting income was $700,000. Both she and her husband are full professors in the Harvard Law School. That by itself means that their household income is well beyond $500,000 per year. It should come as no surprise that with that kind of income, the couple’s wealth would exceed $7 million.
But why is this important? FDR, with an inflation-adjusted wealth of $60 million, was a champion of the working class and a thorn in the side of plutocrats.
11
@HozeKing,
Ms. Warren has written/co-written dozens of books.
Including her prof. salary, and speaking engagements.
https://www.goborestaurant.com/blog/books/elizabeth-warren-books/
2
Alas! I *love* Warren's policy proposals. But 1) an elite technocrat, 2) woman, 3) seeking "radical" change, 4) while dogged by Native-headdress memes - is DOA in the general. I would support her anyway (expecting to lose) if not for the identifies-as-Native idiocy. But that reinforces the right wing caricature of lefties and we -cannot- walk into that. We not only have to sell the country on a candidate, we also have to show who we are - brand ourselves. Up-is-down identity fetish politics -cannot- be how we define ourselves to the world. There is too much good, and ill, at stake.
2
The planet has had all the capitalism it can handle, and now it's ready to shake us off like a bloated tick.
3
I think Democrats will lose the upcoming election if they keep yammering on about free parental leave, free childcare, free college, and free whatever else...certainly these things need to be more affordable, but people need to have some responsibility in these things (some "skin in the game")...shouting free this and that will not go down well with those people (most people) that know there is no "free"...
4
unfortunately, with stagnated salaries and increasing cost of living, 'free' is only thing a lot people could afford
6
Capitalism needs Elizabeth Warren?! Yeah, like a fish needs a bicycle.
It's a bit like the preposterous claim that FDR saved capitalism. As New Republic editor George Soule noted approvingly at the time, Roosevelt was “trying out the economics of fascism.” As you know, FDR mired the economy in a Depression that ended only with World War II.
Does every generation really have to learn from the same mistake when the verdict of history is unequivocal?
Like many progressives Warren believes that she can make business more productive by sacking and pillaging it for cash to finance bribes for her voting blocs.
One loony tune idea is ending the era of “shareholder-value maximization.” Oh really? Don't Warren -- and Leonhardt too -- realize that we need corporations to make profits -- and the more the better? The alternative is a zero-growth economy or, worse, public bailouts of our largest corporations. That is what will happen if Warren cripples corporations by making boardrooms into battlegrounds where different interests squabble over how to divide up the spoils.
The same goes for federal chartering. Her plan would give the federal government power to revoke businesses' licenses to operate if they don't follow Washington's orders. When President Warren acquires the power to boss corporate bosses, do you really believe that corporations will still be able to do for us what our economy needs -- like creating jobs and economic growth?
We've seen the past, and it doesn't work.
4
The Soule quotation has been making the rounds of right-wing extremist websites. That’s the first tip into your perspective in this screed.
As for shareholder maximization, this Manichaean world view ignores the fact that most European countries balance growth and shareholder value against employee security and compensation to a greater degree that the US. It certainly hasn’t led to the demise of German corporations. And that kind of balanced economic growth with a social conscience is all Elizabeth Warren is proposing.
4
Before FDR, half of population was at or bellow poverty level even during 'roaring 20s'. FDR saved capitalism by creating the conditions for development of significant middle class. I am not sure we need the corporations making profit more than we need the middle class that pays the taxes.
3
@Ockham9
I notice you don't deny the accuracy of the quotation. Here is another. The Director of FDR's National Recovery Administration, Gen. Hugh Johnson, invoked the "shining name" of Benito Mussolini.
Maybe we haven't seen the demise of German corporations. But in the past 30-odd years they haven't closed the gap with the US and are also-rans in cutting edge technologies.
You state that the history of president Clinton and Obama suggests that the Democratic Party’s economic agenda needs to become more ambitious.
That is for sure. But you have it wrong.
The problem is not those presidents but capitalism. Large scale studies over hundreds of years shows that capitalism crashes every 4 to 7 years, throwing millions of workers into chaos, loss of jobs, loss of income and greater insecurity. Decade after decade. Millions and millions of people. These crashes are sometimes referred to as "business cycles." What a joke that is. And our newer and younger members of congress know this and we shall soon have some wisdom, rational thinking and action on this in our government. It is coming.
These horrid crashes are built in weaknesses of capitalism, an authoritarian economics where the wage earner has misery day in and day out. Living pay check to paycheck (80% of americans) the worker goes through life with great insecurity, fear and with no control over their income, security and even fine details of his daily job. A Board of Men, a very small number of them, decide what happens to his/her income, life, security, advancement and daily happiness. absurd. Now this can all be seen as truth when one looks away from the mainstream media and finds it.
A good review of all this is seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-AsYwDG5mU
1
A Warren/Cortez ticket sounds interesting. It will Please the w/m privileges bashers a tad too.
1
Until capitalists are under our heel, it is all nothing but bluster. Watch how Warren gets denigrated and denounced and put down - by Democrats. This is a feature of our corpocracy, not a bug - to tear down progressives.
3
This "president" is threatening all of us, with his inciting violence rhetoric, he will use the most lawless tactics to protect himself from impeachment and stay out of jail, and we still debating... this capitalism produced so many trumps and rich low lives, that the whole structure is collapsing.
Let's stop debating and start gradually building the new progressive system that works for all citizens.
2
Great column, but I wish Leonhardt would go deeper on "power". You have to take political power away from the ruling wealthy elite before you can change the economy. Without power you just have a bunch of good ideas you can't implement or sustain.
"The future of the republic does not actually depend on the relative sizes of Medicare, Medicaid and the private market. It may, however, depend on whether Americans’ incomes and living standards are consistently rising."
No. That's only part of the puzzle. The future, like the past, depends on who has the power; who rules America. I think the people should rule, not the rich.
For more on power, and who rules America,
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu
2
This "president" is threatening all of us, with his inciting violence rhetoric, he already proclaiming that military is with him, the bikers for trump are with him, police, 90% republicans is with him and most of them are trigger happy and their guns are fully loaded, and he will use the most lawless tactics to protect himself from impeachment and stay out of jail, and we still debating... this capitalism produced so many trumps and rich low lives, that the whole structure is collapsing.
We have chilling reality starring in our faces.
Let's stop debating and start gradually building the new progressive system that works for all citizens.
2
Capitalism needs Elizabeth Warren?! Yeah, like a fish needs a bicycle.
This is like the preposterous claim that FDR saved capitalism. As you know, the New Deal mired the economy in a Depression that it took World War II to end. Does every generation really have to make the same mistake when the verdict of history is lying in plain view?
Like many progressives Warren believes that she can make business more productive by sacking and pillaging it for cash to finance bribes for her voting blocs. One loony tune idea is ending the era of “shareholder-value maximization.” Oh really? Don't Warren -- and Leonhardt too -- realize that we need corporations to make profits -- and the more the better? The alternative is a zero-growth economy or, worse, public bailouts of our largest corporations.
Is that what we want? That is what will happen if Warren cripples corporations by making boardrooms into battlegrounds where different interests squabble over who gets what.
The same goes for federal chartering of large corporations. Her plan would give the federal government power to revoke businesses' licenses to operate if they don't follow Washington's orders. When President Warren acquires the power to boss corporate bosses, do you really believe that corporations will still be able to do their job -- like creating employment and economic growth?
Warren needs to wise up. If corporations don't make profits, how is she going to soak them?
2
@Ian Maitland
You’re being dramatic and drawing the most extreme and unrealistic conclusions. The federal government provides charters to banks. It’s not taking all of the actions that you’re suggesting here.
3
@BK
Mark my words. We will hear this mantra over and over in the coming months intended to put us back to sleep:
"Don't worry. Sen. Warren doesn't really mean what she says."
I don't want to have to find out if that is accurate.
2
@BK. Ian is 110% accurate
I refuse to give Bernie any credit. I think Bernie Sanders has been a net loss for the Democratic party. Bernie Sanders comes from a largely rural state, and never had to answer to large constituencies based in the corporate/financial/healthcare sectors. He is not now, and never has been, a team player, and in the last election acted as a spoiler who actually aided and abetted Trump - by so alienating his voters against Clinton that some of them refused to vote for her. His role in her loss should not be underestimated.
Contrast with Elizabeth Warren who came to Congress to get stuff done, and actually did get stuff done, who worked tirelessly to support Democratic candidates all over the country, and who has been campaigning all along not only against Trump, but against the Republican party and countering the Republican narrative.
Bernie's lack of repentance for his contribution to Trump's election is evident in his decision to run again, despite his age, despite the fact that there is no shortage of potentially popular candidates. Unlike Mike Bloomberg, who is genuinely interested in advancing an agenda and getting Democrats elected, Bernie's unchecked ego is leading him to become a spoiler again. If he really wanted to have influence, he would leverage his popularity by endorsing another candidate.
3
It is difficult to be a team player if the team conspired against you. I think Bernie behaved very graciously under the circumstance, but for Hillary people it was not enough. They could not admit that she was a bad candidate. She had all advantages by running against very weak opponent, and she managed to loose. But I guess never take a responsibility for failure is the motto of Hillary supporters. Now they want to push another loser who offers more of the same, and we are supposed to believe it will be a winner.
1
As others here have said, moderation is where Democrats go to die.
Enough dithering with half-measures and micro-targeted remedies for major systemic problems. I'm with Warren on boldness. Tis is the season for Democrats to go bold, because they must to tackle the biggest problem facing the country after climate change — income inequality.
They may not like it, but the rich simply have to do their civic duty and pay more. Republican tax cuts don’t raise all boats. It’s a lie. The only thing they raise is the passive income of the rich.
No, what we need is: 1) true, free, quality universal health care based on the “Beveridge System”, as adopted in Scandinavia; 2) free, quality education, K-graduate degrees; and 3) a revised tax code to pay for it all, and by eliminating loopholes, a tax return so simple to prepare, you don’t need an accountant.
Most might end up paying more in taxes, but according to economists who’ve studied such a systemic overhaul, we'd net out paying less when compared to what we currently pay in taxes, health insurance, college tuition for our children and/or student loans for med school or whatever (which, by the way, helps doctors justify insanely high fees). And the animal spirit of capitalism would be just fine.
Imagine a genuine meritocracy where children are no longer dependent upon the single greatest factor in future success for every child in America — the socio-economic status of their parents.
5
The fundamental problem with any calls to address "wealth inequality" is that they basically all center around divorcing the inputs to wealth from the outputs. Unless we're talking about lottery winners, wealth is earned - either by you, or by your parents or grandparents who would have considered it one of the biggest benefits of having a great deal of money to be able to give their descendants a better life.
Until you can explain to me why the CEO actually deserves his paycheck less than the janitor, wealth redistribution amounts to immoral theft.
3
I’ll give it a shot - two different approaches.
First, those who have actually earned, not inherited, their wealth have used much more of the public goods than the janitor. Sure the janitor uses the roads, legal systems and our national defense, but the CEO uses much more, personally and in the course of earning that wealth. In order to be successful, you need to use the roads to ship your goods. The legal and banking system to protect your business. You need employees, which have to use public resources to contribute to your wealth. And those employees need food stamps from the government when you don’t pay them a proper wage. You need to use public resources mop up your losses, while you privatize the gains, much much more than the janitor does. Then, to top it off, you bribe officials through campaign donations, further rigging it in your favor.
Second, I’d like to know which more immoral. The richest 100 families in the world have enough wealth to end poverty, even if they gave up just 10-20% to do it. Instead of using their wealth to alleviate others suffering, they amass it, just for the sake of their egos. Yes, they give some of it away for tax purposes, and of course as campaign contributions, but keep most of it. Or is it more immoral for the government to separate an individual from their wealth, in most cases for the betterment of society.
4
@SXM Alright, my turn.
1) I don't think I buy your argument that the wealthy people use the public goods more; and to the extent they do, I think we already have that covered. When you look at what the federal government spends money on, 64% goes to Social Security, healthcare assistance (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc), or other entitlements. These programs are undeniably used more by people in the LOWER income brackets. a further 15% funds the military, which we will say benefits all Americans equally (even if you think the rich benefit more from security because they have more to secure, I'll cover why this doesn't excuse more tax hikes below). So basically 80% of our federal spending (closer to 85% if we allocate the 7% that goes to interest) goes, right off the bat, to programs that either benefit people equally, or benefit lower earners more. Its not much different when we look at the other 15%.
But lets even assume that we can say, because you have more, you have benefited more, and so you should pay more. Actually, that's not unreasonable. But even under a flat tax - where everyone paid the same percentage of every dollar of their income - the rich would pay more. And the more they had, the more they'd pay. What a progressive tax system is really saying is that the CEO - who studied, worked his way up, etc - really only deserves to keep, say, 60% of his income....yet that janitor deserves more than 100% of his income. And I don't see the justification for that.
Just because you don't buy the argument it doesn't mean that the argument is not reasonable. Yes, social security benefits more to LOWER income people, but it is only because HIGHER income people refuse to distribute the profit fairly. I am yet to hear why CEO of companies ( even failed ones) is worthy much more than janitor. Who does define how much is CEO worthy? Another CEOs who depends on this CEO for their pay?
1
Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican until 1996.
In early 90's, Bernie, Sherrod, Maxine, and several other real Democrats voted against NAFTA.
Why? Because they knew the 1% wanted to flood into low wage, no benefit, irresponsible environmental countries to enrich themselves.
Warren, 69 years old, better explain to me how she managed to be Republican in the 60s, 70s, 80's and half the 90s.
2
@Tom
It became apparent to her in her research in her areas of expertise, consumer protection and bankruptcy, how big business was treating people and that it was becoming worse. In addition, the Republican Party has continued to become more radical since the 1980s. The party was not the same 30-40 years ago as it is now. Many were more supportive of H.W. Bush than Reagan.
2
FDR knew who the Republicans were in the 30's. So I'm not buying that Elizabeth left them because they changed in the 90s
1
@Tom
No, Tom. Republicans are not the same as they were decades ago. Are you really comparing Gerald Ford and H.W. Bush to Gingrich, Trump, and Paul Ryan, and the Tea Party? Are you not aware that Reagan and Goldwater used to be on the fringe of the Republican Party? You’re probably older than me. How are you now aware of that?
2
Few dispute that wealth and income inequity is a problem for the US, and much of the West, which left unchecked will have dangerous consequences. The problem is how to resolve it.
Much of the focus has been on ways to reduce the accumulation of wealth by the very richest - ideas like the wealth tax. Less attention has been given to ways to increase incomes for middle and working class Americans.
The wealth tax is a seemingly attractive idea, but it may act as a deterrent to investment in the US and will be fiendishly difficult to collect. For people whose wealth is measured in illiquid assets, it could also lead to the break-up of family owned businesses and the like and would be a disincentive to wealth accumulation through entrepreneurship (something the US excels at) and innovation.
This cure may be worse than the disease and I for one would like to hear more about Warren's ideas for generating better paying jobs for middle class Americans.
1
Ok, what is the alternative? How do you increase the wealth of everybody? We are all ears to hear this wonderful solution.
Warren is the candidate who has years of political experience, comprehensive understanding of policy, is capable of speaking with the American people so that they come away from her speeches with a clearer knowledge of contemporary issues. She is that FDR candidate the DNC, Warren is a Democrat, needs to win the 2020 election. When Elizabeth Warren announced her campaign for the presidency, I began monthly donations. She accepts no corporate assist. Unless something vastly unforeseen presents, I cant imagine voting for anyone else this time around. Elizabeth Warren for President of the United States of America 2020.
7
'... politics is not an expertise competition...' Hmmm. Shouldn't politicians have considerable expertise in what the government is actually about, areas like the economy, social issues or world affairs?
Or have we reached the point where our expectations are dragged so low that we agree that becoming President should come down to who can manipulate, maneuver, threaten and charm most successfully -- a 'pure' politician?
To be fair, I think the author is not of this opinion, but it is high time that we began to value expertise once more.
9
@Malcolm
Would you like Dick Cheney to run?
David, just a point of clarification: Clinton’s deficit reduction didn’t result in the economic boom. If it did, the secret to prosperity would be tax hikes.
What happened was the reverse. The economy grew, and congress didn’t spend the increased revenues on new programs. Thus the surplus. Thus George Bush because “it’s your money”. Thus the end of Republicans’ always undeserved reputation for fiscal probity.
4
Warren is perhaps best suited as the idea person behind an "inspiring" (aka entertaining) candidate willing to listen to them and able to present them to not-so-bright voters. Right now, that candidate seems to be the mayor of NYC.
@Jeff Atkinson
I suspect that you might be alone in considering Bill DiBlasio to be inspiring/entertaining. I don't even think he'd make that cut viewed as a clown.
I do not feel Warren is an electable Pres. candidate. Her ideas though are those that should be on the table. Warren can/will do more for average Americans by being the loud voice in the Senate and public arena that can propose major policy issues. She can be an influencer, not conflicted by the Presidency and its political necessities. Winning acceptance of her ideas may be easier from the floor of congress than the oval office.
If you actually listen to her, she is an engaging and passionate speaker. Give her a chance.
13
@impegleg
The Senate does not appointment the chairs or directors of all of the regulatory agencies; the President does? There’s little she can do in the Senate, other than grill people summoned to appear and testify.
1
I have to admit I like just about everything that comes out of her mouth. I’m also going to watch the two governors as well this year closely, but I want a policy wonk in there and not just a handsome or pretty face.
15
Republicans have thrived by emphasizing social issues like abortion, distracting the middle and lower class while picking their pockets. Warren's approach seems like the right one, and her ideas are good, bold, understandable and so far pretty specific. I hope that, whether she's nominated or not, her approach becomes the Democratic platform. As for a wealth tax, the GOP will scream "socialism" and claim that it will destroy family businesses. They always yell that: a tax on huge agribusiness will destroy family farms. And they succeed in protecting the rich; maybe not this time.
One criticism of your analysis: "...companies care almost exclusively about the interests of their shareholders": delete "almost."
7
Fix capitalism? How about replacing rampant commercialism with free market competition? How about relegating capitalism to an economic policy instead of a way of life?
1
I’d like her to make a list of the changes she’d make. As Newt did with his Contract with America. I’d like something to chew on. I like her focus. I like her ideas. I like her earnestness.
16
The discussion of Warren's views point out how we need to eschew labeling our nation as a "capitalist" nation or the democratic reform proposals as "socialist." We have had a mixed economy for decades. There's a danger of allowing the dark money message machine to create a red scare to prop up the fake president in the WH...who coincidently is mislabeled as a "populist." Happy Halloween.
19
She'll force better candidates to address these issues and develop more inspiring campaigns. But I sure hope that she does not win the nomination. She is gift-wrapped for the Republicans.
2
Senator Warren is a fine fair minded person. I feel she has missed her calling...In reality she is a 21st century Max Weber hiding in the mantle of what is likely to become an ineffective politician. She is now match for the hard scrabble rhetoric of today’s political scene..,and should earnestly behind the scenes helping to organize the rhetoric of someone who can win..Andy Morse
1
Warren's proposed solutions to the massive inequity found in America are sound and fair and are what America need to move forward.
For far to long America has been held hostage to economic black mail by the rich, wall street, banks and muti national corporations who control all the levers of power be it economic or political and for any fairness to be returned to the American worker power needs to returned or at least shared to those who create the wealth namely the workers who work with their minds and hands to create all the economic wealth of America.
14
Maybe Elizabeth Warren should question why she was able to attend law school for $450 per semester in the early 80's while today's law students pay $45,000 per semester.
The cost of higher education is never questioned, ever. It just is. The problem never seems to be with the colleges themselves ( or at least never questioned). If she is such a champion of the middle class, why hasn't this ever occurred to her?
3
@Melissa M.
There are proposals out there for free higher education tuition.
7
@Melissa M.
Agreed. Fact is, far too many academics are paid too much. And, following a serious proposal in the 1970s by the relatively conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet, tenure should be granted to university/college academics early on in their careers, when they need it, and then they should progressively lose it, when they don’t need it. As to tenure at the el/hi level, there should be no such thing. The McCarty bugbear, at all levels of education, is just that—a bugbear. The prima donnas, of course, will cling to their Galileo complex.
Less pay and less tenure would help weed out the dead weight in the world(s) of education, of which there is tonnage, many in administration. There is also “tonnage” of marvelous, inspiring, hard-working, intelligent people in education, who deserve protection and fair pay, lest the reactionaries see this as ammunition for their destructive ambitions. Too much pay and too much tenure, on the other hand, are not the protection that excellence in education deserves.
1
@Melissa M.
So you’re comparing Harvard to every state university? Yes, the tuition at every public university should be considerably less. Attending one of the most elite universities is not necessary. In addition, elite universities charge students of lower income backgrounds less. Think about that a bit more.
6
Warren's proposed solutions to the massive inequity found in America are sound and fair.
For far to long America has been held hostage to economic black mail by the rich, wall street, banks and muti national corporations who control all the levers of power be it economic or political and for any fairness to be returned to the American worker power needs to returned or at least shared to those who create the wealth namely the workers who work with their minds and hands to create all the economic wealth of America.
4
It's very early, so I don't have a favorite candidate for 2020, but Elizabeth Warren is offering real ideas on how we can make the economy work better for all of us. She is a capitalist, but recognizes that it needs some boundaries and that government needs resources to do its job. Most important, we need to hear ideas- not taunts and slurs- as we approach a very important 2020 decision.
29
Without belaboring the details, the wealth tax is constitutionally problematic. Senator Warren has no apparent answer to those problems, which is a bit odd given the fact that she was a law professor. Many of the same effects of deploying high income and large capital reserves toward the young generations can be effected in other ways, however. For instance, through strong tax incentives could be implemented to spend income on employment opportunities for those economically far downstream, and to invest wealth in socially desirable settings. We do some of that now. We could do a lot more withou breaking the constitution with a confiscatory tax system targeted only at a few. That really would be socialism, no matter what Sen. Warren says.
1
No tax is constitutionally problematic. There are no “details”. The constitution doesn’t address property other than to say Americans won’t be deprived of it without just compensation.
Taxing something isn’t depriving anyone of it, by definition. Article 1 grants to congress the power to tax. End of story.
11
Oh, and “confiscatory”? Please define.
A wealth tax of, say, 2% on amounts over $50 million leaves 100% of the first $50 million intact and leaves 98% of the rest.
On the other hand, social security absorb 15% of the first dollar in earnings, up to $125,000 or so.
A democratic society is not obliged to meekly accept whatever outcome obtains from an economy. It controls the rules of the game: preproduction, production, and post-production. It controls what is property and what isn’t, what’s private and what’s public.
When wealth is actually confiscated, we can talk about confiscatory. Not before. Until then, we’re just talking — or, hopefully, acting — to organize society to our collective mutual benefit.
12
@Dave Oedel
You advocate for solutions to wealth inequality "without breaking the constitution with a confiscatory tax system targeted only at a few."
Without getting into the constitutionality issue, how do you devise a system which does not target "a few" when "a few" have all of the wealth. According to Oxfam America (see link below), 26 individuals now own more wealth than the bottom 50% of people in the world, or about 3.8 billion people. This is the result of decades of favorable treatment for the wealthy, and in order for the rest of the world to have a decent standard of living, those with the most must give up some of what they have been allowed to accumulate. Taxing wealth in excess of $50 Million at 2% sounds exceedingly reasonable to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report
3
I've been writing in these comments boxes for a few weeks now about how, since Republicans are all set to tar any Democrat with the toxic term "Socialist", they should start using the phrase "Social Capitalism" and define it as an agenda of private economic ownership leavened by firm regulation and a commitment to leveling the playing field by universalizing health care, education, decent housing, and the like.
Which sounds a lot like what Warren is describing.
(I keep predicting any candidate who takes on the term will see a nice jump in support.)
18
@Glenn Ribotsky
Or FDR Democrat.
I like your idea, but also think Roosevelt was a model for much of this.
7
@Glenn Ribotsky Agreed - the term socialist or socialism is to be avoided by democratic candidates at all costs. It auto generates too many negative connotations in this country - its like the labels "Anti-Semite" or "Rascist", hand grenades easily thrown that damage the guilty and the innocent.
Updated Capitalism or Social Capitalism are the preferred and more accurate terms to describe what is needed to change the bulk of nations lives for the better.
3
@Glenn Ribotsky Why not take a leaf out of George W Bush's book and call it Compassionate Capitalism?
2
Warren’s “big ideas” are rehashed variants of anti-business. redistribution concepts. Wouldn’t it be preferable to have policies generated from people who have actually started and been in business - ie real-life experience - as opposed to academics?
2
You mean like the current president? There’s nothing wrong with being anti-business as an antidote to decades of anti-worker policies.
22
@LTJ Are you suggesting we should simply write off ideas based on the professional experience of their authors and proponents? How do you feel about a man who avoided the military being Commander in Chief or all US armed forces? Perhaps, in your view, someone who hasn't served, at least, in the military should never be the Commander in Chief. Perhaps, in your view, we should bring back the draft. If that is your view, I actually might agree with you, on that score.
6
When did the hashing start, and since when is redistribution a bad idea? Who made capitalism the proper arbiter of wealth?
Economics is not business and a country is not a company. That’s not news; it’s been known to economists for over a century.
To cite only the teeniest example, tariffs. A single firm can profit from or lose from a tariff. The steel tariff is good for steel and bad for GM. For the country as a whole it’s a loss. We’ve known that since David Ricardo.
12
A core problem is that our elections are emotive, and reactionary, and the solutions our society needs demand clear-headed, unbiased, thoughtfulness.
Another core problem is that our society puts the individual good ahead of the Common Good, so both the majority of citizens, and our society as a whole, fail to reach their potential for a just existence.
As long as the electorate remains willingly ignorant and must be "inspired" and entertained by the election process and candidates, we will continue to suffer from the Ship of State conundrum and underperform our potential as a civil, just society.
MB
16
Why say FB & other tech co's have 'come to resemble monopolies’? What else are they? The US is not exactly big on regulating any corporate conglomerate. This is the biggest problem for the 2020 election.
A past Guardian UK clip--
“Despite the political theatre of Mr. Zuckerberg’s congressional interrogations, Facebook’s business model isn’t at any real risk from regulators in the US.
In Europe, however, the looming General Data Protection Regulation will give people better privacy protections and force companies to make sweeping changes to how they collect data and consent from users – with huge fines for those who don’t comply.”
“It’s changing the balance of power from the giant digital marketing companies to focus on the needs of individuals and democratic society,” said the Center for Digital Democracy. “That’s an incredible breakthrough.”
Yes, a breakthrough for protection of citizens and society. What about our protections in the US?
But Europe also protects it’s citizens with medical care for all, while the US still thinks it’s necessary to leave millions uninsured, and millions of insured at risk for crushing expenses. Profit is 1st.
Total difference in attitude. Here, private profit is equated with Freedom from Big Govt. Let’s see if this 2020 campaign can finally make some difference, with Warren or anyone else.
8
What is capitalism? If we tend to call Adam Smith the father of capitalism it would help to take a look at his major work, The Theory Of Moral Sentiments. (The Wealth Of Nations is a minor work, but given ridiculous importance due mainly to that confusing "invisible hand" he dropped a couple of times which means... nothing really, just a figure of speech...)
In a nut shell, in The Theory Of Moral Sentiments, Smith advocates for a society/system that sees that each and every individual is assisted to develop his/her natural talents and aptitudes. By doing so the individual will reward society with his/her acquired skills; a natural, fair pay back, which is also the source for happiness.
Then why are we confusing things? Isn't it clear that Adam Smith was not addressing "capital" as being money but human capital, human resources, the most valuable capital there is? If so, isn't Adam Smith the Father of Socialism? Or, let's compromise, The Father Of Capitalism With Human Face?
11
@Nicholas
Good points. Smith like Petty and Ricardo agreed that value (capital in the form of stocks or money) was equal to labor spent in producing a commodity. Although money is not necessarily capital (like the one in my pocket). Only if it is invested to valorize itself as profits of enterprise, rent, or interest. In other words capital is objectified human labor used by living labor ( or a social relationship)
4
@Enri
The sad thing is that many read a work and still come with wrong conclusions. In an argument with a guy who read Piketty's Capital..he responded that I was wrong, that it wasn't value but inequality that Piketty was addressing, as if effects don't have causes. The tragedy with capitalism is the body of Anglo-Saxon laws, based on property, property of white, preferably rich men. Blacks were "chattel" property and other's labor was still a form of property, to be exploited, money being the almighty God of capitalism... All this can be traced to the ethos of looting men in the medieval times when loot became the bases of (nordic and Anglo-Saxon) property, and the laws followed, as was the ethos, resulting in capitalism of exploitation and not what Smith enunciated, which really, is socialism, continued by J.M. Keynes, Stieglitz, Piketty, and practiced in Scandinavian countries with great results. Warren should take notice of this and change her narrative!
1
Leonhardt wrote: "She has big ideas for fixing the American economy."
"Big ideas", such as dictating the composition of corporate boards. Board member's thought: "Time to call Liz for my marching orders before each board vote." Political intrusion into decisions that should be made on the basis of sound corporate governance.
"Big ideas", such as a wealth tax, which will never bring in enough revenue to finance the spending she proposes. This wealth confiscation will eventually extend to the resources of the upper middle-class and to those below them on the socio-economic scale.
Her "big ideas" invariably will lead to a larger, more intrusive central government.
No thanks.
Jasper
3
Confiscation? Is a property tax confiscation? Why is income subject to tax and not (certain kinds of) wealth?
Sound corporate governance has produced the deindustrialization of the the country, off-shoring, and wage stagnation.
You may say workers should have no voice in how the firm is run. I would point out that management, and the board, are also workers. They have colluded with the stockholders for their own benefit at the expense of the other workers. Maybe that’s what should be illegal!
12
@Jasper the immoral, confiscatory taxes and nationalization of business Warren proposes will bring about a depression of unspeakable depth and duration, just like they have in Venezuela and everywhere else they’ve been tried
Capitalism died long ago. The GOP embraces socialism for their districts, Mitch McConnell's Coal Miner's free healthcare and paychecks. Chuck Grassley's billions of $'s for ethanol aid and Farmer aid for his districts, wall street and bank bailout, rich tax cuts, big business tax cuts, etc.
10
Yes, very big! Unfortunately, those big ideas will create bigger deficits
1
First we repeal the Trump tax cut. That’s $1 trillion in extra revenue right there.
Then we spend it. That puts us back where we are now, fiscally, but with lots of new benefits for ordinary Americans, instead of the tax cut, 84% of which went in the pockets of the 0.1%.
Then, if you’re still worried about the deficit, we can talk about raising taxes.
I have yet to meet a deficit scold interested in raising taxes. Deficit concerns always seem to cloak, none too well, a tacit belief that the government spends too much. But instead of being forthright about that, and detailing what is being spent that shouldn’t be, they wag their finger at the deficit.
13
@Tejano
Tax cuts for the wealthy created a bigger deficit, and it doesn’t matter. And don’t don’t forget: it’s the wealthy who protect us from the socialists who want to take away our Medicare - we wouldn’t want to de-fund them. Things are great just the way they are.
2
@James K. Lowden
Deficit scolds are usually pretty forthright about explaining how the economy is being crushed under the burden of providing free lunches for underprivileged schoolchildren. But you’re right, raising taxes never comes up. Neither does the military budget.
1
America doesn't need Capitalism! If you look at the definition of "Capitalist" in the dictionary, you get:
1) A very wealthy person
2) A person who derives his income from investments and not from his own labor.
In a Capitalist country, most of the people work for salaries or hourly rates. They do not live on investment dividends. They are NOT Capitalists, just the workers who enrich the Capitalists. That's why Capitalism, which is a very hierarchical economic system favoring the wealthy few wo profit from the labor of the many has such an uncomfortable relationship with a society where the people have sovereignty in political & social domains. Democratic Socialism just extends the people's sovereignty into the economic realm & not be merely the fodder for the investor class.
Socialism does not mean taking from working people & giving to layabouts (if it did, then why don't the whining workers quit their jobs & enjoy the life of leisure they imagine the poor have. For some unfathomable reason, the middle class who get outraged at seeing money going to the needy see nothing wrong with the fruits of their labor going to those who already have more than they can spend in 10 lifetimes. The best example of Democratic Socialism is the Publix supermarket chain (from DC to the Keys on the East Coast), which rates #1 or #2 in every national poll. Only its 900.000 employees & former employees can have ownership, making it the largest worker-owned socialist commune in the country.
10
@Beartooth there is a problem with people who derive their knowledge of history, economics, politics and science from dictionaries. The problem is that they don’t know what they are talking about. Socialism means the state’s ownership of the means of production. Democratic socialism means nothing. Socialism as an economic system has been tried repeatedly and has failed, often bloodily, in every country that had the misfortune of embracing it (and no, European countries today are not socialist). Democratic socialism means nothing because a majority - in the US or anywhere else - is not in favor of having their factories, restaurants, shops and tech startups owned by the government. I see that you are talking about “the people”, which is a favorite ploy of all demagogues on the right and the left. Nobody is empowered to speak for “the people”. Ask Americans whether they want a socialist country, and a clear majority will say “no”.
1
@Mor: The problem with people who dismiss concepts like Democratic Socialism out of hand is that they argue disingenuously. Democratic Socialism is a catchall for a society which accepts capitalism but with certain limits, along with protections for laborers, help for families raising children, assurances of low cost education and health care. In actual polling, Americans overwhelmingly support these things.
6
If the choice came down to Warren or “Beto” clearly she has better defined ideas. Listening to some of Beto’s stump (actually table) speeches in Iowai I was impressed with his energy and depressed with his lack of definite solid proposals. It’s very much like he’s running for class president, not president of the country.
13
You assume that the average American can understand high thoughts! My son who was a tv producer for a major cable network (not Fox) told his reports to not use words that a 6th grader would not understand!
I saw that as a local government official for 25 years....
3
Haven’t looked at all comments but I think this article - and Ms Warren - are missing a larger concern. Jobs and automation. We can tax the wealthy all we want but it won’t create new jobs for the middle class - especially white middle aged men - who are/will be decimated by automation. It’s no coincidence Clinton lost swing states devastated by manufacturing jobs that were automated. What happens when truck drivers (self driving trucks), call centers (artificial intelligence) , and retail are devastated by automation? I will give you a hint - anger, depression, suicide, drug dependency, and further polarization. Sound familiar? There will be no energy to tackle climate change, political reform, tax reform, and the talking blowhards on tv will capitalize on the anger to further the political divide (and their ratings). Please NYT, write and article about Andrew Yang’s candidacy. His ideas and observations are critical to the national debate and democratic primary.
4
What is so good about this article is that it actually tells us something concrete about what Elizabeth Warren proposes, specific ideas regardless of how any one individual assesses and reacts to them. It is substantially better than the recent tabloid style articles so far in the NYT about Amy Klobuchar and her comb and Beto O'Rourke sitting next to his wife while she silently holds his hand in a video. Thank you Mr. Leonhardt.
18
Sorry, Senator Warren--(who brags that she is a capitalist and was a registered Republican until 1995)--the voters won't buy warmed over Obamaism. After $100 million from the Unions, plus thousands of volunteers supporting him, President Obama declined to lift a finger for the check-off, labor organizing reform bill--which then failed. . . . Betraying his working-class supporters, he immediately surrounded himself with Wall Street advisors, protected the bankers, & did not help foreclosured homeowners . . . When Wisconsin workers were fighting for their bargaining rights, his Democratic Administration was noticeably absent. . . . Finally, let us not forget that the violent smashing of the progressive Occupy movement was also President Obama's doing--in a nation wide, coordinated attack by Federal, local police and corporate cops. . . . There is no such thing as no such thing as capitalism with a human face. It is a system based on exploitation. Just like capitalists in 1820, today Amazon and Apple sweat every ounce of labor they can for their employees and pay them as little as possible. The young workers of America are waking up & are demanding, not pro-business reformism, but revolutionary Socialism.
2
@Red Allover
I’m not sure you’re aware of the work she’s been doing for 25+ years. Name any other Democrat who has done what she has in consumer protection. Google “CFPB enforcement actions.” There is no other agency that has received pushback from the financial services industry as the CFPB has. If you can identify a policy that she helped create or implement as a Republican, name it.
A wealth tax is "an idea whose time has come".
Depending on how specifics are implemented, it could change the class structure and DESTROY THE RICH.
This would be a GOOD THING.
4
@Joe Sneed
No, it would not destroy the rich. Nor should it. It was contribute to a more balanced and stable economy in which the rich have less capital to inflate stock prices and cause volatility in the market.
1
"Two, I don’t agree with all of Warren’s proposals. Her plan to break up the big technology companies seems too uniform, for example."
So what's the better alternative, then? It would seem to me that many, if not most of the big economic problems of the last 4 decades arose out of the roots and seed of corporations allowed to grow too large and powerful. Corporations that have become the tails that wagged the dogs of the government and the community. How does Mr. Leonhardt propose to address that, then?
"Her plan to put workers on corporate boards may not be as practical as, say, a big federal push to increase workers’ bargaining power."
Why not? Exactly that method works for corporations in Germany. Besides, even you, Mr. Leonhardt, have said earlier in this op-ed that it would be good to 'end the era of "shareholder-value maximization". With that statement you put your finger clearly on one of the root problems, yet you contradict yourself by later saying that putting representatives of one of the most important stakeholders in any corporation on the board is a bad thing? What gives?
5
Senator Elizabeth Warren has my vote. She is the real deal. She has studied the middle-class and how it is affected by economics for decades.
Her book, The Two-Income Trap, was incredibly enlightening on how the U.S. economy fundamentally changed from my parents generation to my generation.
Senator Warren has clearly thought out and expressed ideas which are not "Republican-lite". I'm voting for her.
19
Alas, Warren's style and American Indian skeletons may turn off too many voters, however, just as Bernie did last time around, Warren can be instrumental in getting her ideas into mainstream thinking and action. Of course, if we're really lucky, she will be the candidate because I certainly consider her big visions inspiring and what our country needs if we have any chance of turning things around.
4
Senator Warren is a good thinker. What you hear from her is the clear sound of the bell tolling what life is like in America in 2019. The eventual nominee will need to expound on all the issues listed in the article, but my hope is that should Senator Warren run for President, she keeps it simple, doubles down on her key priorities and not be all over the map. Senator Sanders showed the power of a simple all-embracing message.
7
Capitalism CAN'T be fixed, it is a failed system. And ALL of the fixes are just bandaids and don't get at the real issues. But, given the ignorance of the populace and our leaders and their diehard belief in the system, some "fixes" are better than nothing.
1
@Gordon Alderink
The system of capital rather than capitalism reproduces itself as long as it grows, which means as long as it augments output (or value represented in money) relative to input from year to year. In this regard, this ratio has been growing very slowly in the last decade and slower than 1974.
In terms of fulfilling human needs at the moment, it is not succeeding despite historical claims to the opposite.
Mr. Leonhardt, I applaud you for this piece. Senator Warren has the vision, expertise, and courage to make a great president!
13
Krugman writes that labor productivity has risen 150% during the last 5 decades and links the statement to a website where I found the following text:
“Since the beginning of 2011, growth in real output in the nonfarm business sector has been slow, averaging just 2.7% percent. And most of the economic growth has been driven by increases in labor inputs and not by increases in labor productivity. The graph shows real output growth (green line) decomposed into growth in labor input (red line) and growth in labor productivity (blue line), where productivity is measured as real output per hour. Given that the output growth rates are only slightly different from—either a little above or a little below—growth in hours, the majority of growth in output has come from increases in hours instead of increases in labor productivity. Labor productivity growth averaged 0.7% over this period, accounting for just 27% percent of real GDP growth.”
Labor productivity growth amounts to the average growth of how much goods and services each individual can consume and, thus, is the driving force behind increases in the standard of living ... if labor productivity growth held steady at 2%, which is the rate seen in the expansion from 2001 to 2007, the living standard would double in 35 years. If labor productivity continues to grow at 0.7%, it would take 99 years to double the standard of living.”
How any candidate would address this given the private and global nature of this phenomenon?
2
@Enri
Instead of private, please read non-governmental nature of the economy. The source of the quote is fredblog. If I put link, comment would delay for hours as I have experienced in previous comments
Yes Elizabeth Warren does have big ideas to fix capitalism, to fix the economy, to rectify lopsided tax-system.
Unfortunately she's too nervous, and she hasn't yet aroused the enthusiasm of the public.
Whereas, in a very short time Pete Buttigieg impressed the audience, on Monday Townhall session on CNN. In the same Townhall session earlier, John Delaney also did well. Beto O'Rourke fared even better. I would expect Mitch Landrieu also would fare well if he jumps in.
But I would like to see Elizabeth Warren takes a key role in the next Democratic administration.
2
Bill Clinton had a consequential presidency all right.
Reagan had set norms. Clinton didn't really contradict them, though he was a Democrat. Clinton said 'the era of big govt is over'. That's a GOP mantra.
Clinton's economy was stimulated by the computer boom--for the 1st time millions of consumers bought their 1st home computer in the 90s.
Clinton cooperated with the GOP---repealing our long- standing bank regulations with ultimate bad consequences.
Ended welfare for many needy families
Expanded prisons and sentencing leading to the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
He repealed laws that had prevented media from growing into monopolies. We see today's consequences in FOX News as GOP state media across the country.
Yes, Clinton was consequential in realizing many Republican goals.
10
Leonhardt: "Her plan to put workers on corporate boards may not be as practical as, say, a big federal push to increase workers’ bargaining power."
But how can a federal push happen without unions of employees? What could create a political power to counter the corporation---a 'union' of investors with govt protections?
Practical? Meaning what our corporations or their politicians will allow? Or impractical pie in the sky? This is how US progress is blocked.
Our media columnists, instead of being skeptical and cautious might explain how unions did work in our past generations---1/3 of all workers were in unions, thus raising pay/benefits for them and non unionized workers--as a norm.
Explain how other nations like Germany have unions as norms, on corporate boards with input to policy making
Germans call this 'Co-Determination'.
Co means "with, together, jointly"---so the corporation doesn't have all the power to call the shots, affecting the livelihoods and security of millions of citizens.
Isn't a form of 'Co-Determination' supposed to be what American democracy is all about? We the People having a say to determine the laws affecting our security and well being? Including pay, jobs, health care, fair taxes, affordable education, funding of green energy and infrastructure to make our economy work.
Leonhardt could write a column on "Political Co-Determination", and explain its meaning to include the original purpose of America. Warren could campaign on it.
10
Your first two paragraphs define exactly why Warren cannot be elected. Capitalism isn’t capitalism if it’s been bent and thwarted and restricted and constrained. For better or worse, capitalism, like nature itself, is cold, hard, brutal and often unforgiving. That is why it succeeds. That is how it endures. Some of us are up to it. Most are not. A few are exceptional at it. Lying to the electorate only works for do long. No one is entitled to anything. That there has been used to get into the Oval Office since FDR. The damage that has been wrought upon the economy by these falsehoods and tampering need to be undone.
RE: Middle-class and poor families were still receiving less than their fair share
Sorry but there is no such thing as fairness and Elizabeth Warren can't change the law of supply and demand. Middle class income levels are falling and will continue to fall. The levels they were 1945 - 1970 / 1980 was an economic and historical anomaly.
3
Economics recognizes no fairness. But we’re not governed by economics. Only the economy is governed by economics.
The law of supply and demand need not be repealed to change economic outcomes. You’re living through an example of that right now, with Trump’s stupid trade war. Supply and demand are being affected by taxes, otherwise known as tariffs. Some things are becoming more expensive, others more plentiful. Supply and demand altering to reflect the changing reality.
If the 1950s in America were anomalous, what about present day Europe? Or Canada? What anomalous is the situation we find ourselves in, where millions of Americans vote themselves impoverishment at the hands of the economic elite, thinking its for their own good.
3
@Reader In Wash, DC--- Give a reason. Why was our better equality an anomaly? Why is unfairness inevitable?
Capitalism properly regulated by elected govt for democracy and human rights is supposed to counter unfairness. That's the purpose of voting!
Otherwise it's corporations that regulate our govt.
1
I’ll sound like a conservative here and I’m certainly not one. But whenever someone talks about raising taxes on the rich and on corporations, I get worried. And two things worry me.
.
First, our economy is increasingly globalized. If a billionaire doesn’t like US taxes he can avail himself of any number of tax havens that will protect his wealth. Far worse: if a corporation doesn’t like paying taxes in the US, it can leave: or invert itself. It will still sell products here, taking advantage of US laws, US law enforcement and justice, and our economy. But it won’t pay taxes here and probably won’t pay Americans to make the things it sells.
.
Second, there’s the nagging question: “who is rich?” Some people might say I’m rich: my wife and I together make an income that puts us in the bottom quarter of the upper middle class by most estimates. So should I pay more taxes? I hope not. When you count my son who is on the Autism Spectrum, the expenses add up fast!
.
If Elizabeth Warren can find a way to prevent the rich, and large corporations, from leaving if their taxes go up. If she can implement her taxes in such a way that they really do hit the truly rich and not merely the upper middle class: then I am all for them. But I am skeptical that anyone could do the first, and I’m not sure I trust the Democrats to do the second.
3
First, if the problems you imagine ever become manifest, they can be addressed then. The prospect of the rich taking their marbles home has prevented social legislation here for decades.
It’s interesting to note that France and Sweden have both wealth taxes and wealthy people. It turns out “home” is not where you’re taxed least.
Second who you gonna trust, the Democrats or your lying eyes? Republicans since Reagan have had only one tried and true remedy for the economy in good times and bad: cut taxes. To any actual problem, their solution is to make more money because, well, what can the government really do, right?
Democrats are at least talking about real solutions to real problems. No one says their every solution will be perfect or costless. But then neither is present day reality. It seems to me your choice is to trust them (and participate) or simply give up hope.
2
There are a lot of comments here about how Elizabeth Warren (and Bernie Sanders) have great ideas but they can't win.
My advice is if you are lucky enough to vote in an early primary, vote for the person whose ideas you like and who you want to be president, not the person the media and the democratic establishment tells you "will win."
That's how we got Kerry and Clinton, and look what that got us ... Bush Jr. and Trump. Not exactly a winning outcome.
25
I have heard several opinion writers say that, although they like Warren's big ideas, they do not necessarily say that makes her the best Democratic nominee.
Why not? How about another big idea that I heard from Chris Hayes of MSNBC in determining who a voter should vote for. Find out who the candidate wants to help. Find out how they intend to accomplish that. And finally, find out if the candidate can deliver.
Elizabeth Warren definitely wants to help the lower and middle class and has, by far, the best ideas on how to do that. The popularity of her ideas make passage more likely.
That's good enough for me.
34
Good points. But you left out one other big idea. The biggest idea. Fighting climate change, the only existential threat out there aside from nuclear annihilation. Jay Inslee has made that the centerpiece of his campaign. Where is Elizabeth Warren on that issue? Not out in front.
3
I also believe that I have lived opportunity, and I agree with most of Warren's proposals, or at least proposals that are similar, and maybe even more liberal. However, I don't think she would ever be elected if she were the Democratic nominee. I also don't think Bernie has a chance either. I applaud Warren for her more detailed proposals, which Bernie is a little light on.
US voters elected Donald Trump. I lived through Nixon, Reagan and Bush, but I never dreamed Donnie could be elected. I view the next election as the last chance in my lifetime to save our country. We cannot blow this one like we did in 2016. The nominee of the Democratic Party (please remember no Democrat Party) is going to be the object of the right-wing propaganda machine and the Russian meddling in our election next time. Both of them are very, very effective, and they have no compunction to be fair or truthful. They convinced voters, even progressives, that Hillary Clinton was no better than Donald Trump for working people. Hillary ran on the most progressive platform in decades, and she had very detailed policy discussions on her website. None of that mattered because issues were never discussed in the press or on facebook or twitter. They won't be this time much either, except that every progressive idea will be socialist and then communist. I know young people especially don't think socialist is a dirty word, and I don't either. Most Americans still do. We need a united party this time.
7
@jas2200, I think you're dead wrong about progressivism and socialism in America. Hillary lost because she brought out too few progressive voters from key demographics, not because she was "too progressive." Look at Madison and and Milwaukee -- low turnout among progressives meant Trump won a solid blue state.
Hillary may have had a good website and a "technically progressive" platform, but everyone knew she was running as a corporate centrist Dem, and the progressive wing of the party had lost the nomination.
America doesn't need a centrist Dem candidate -- Hillary, Kerry, and Gore all ran as centrists and lost key swing states. America only wins of the progressive voters (under 40 and not white) turn out. That only happens with an exciting progressive candidate. See 2008. We got 60 dems in the senate when "Washington nobody" Barack Obama ran as a "change" progressive.
10
@Skyler: The problem is that "everyone knew she was running as a corporate centrist Dem." The Bernie bros and the Russians pushed that line to divide the party. It worked because a lot of people, especially young people, bought that line. President Obama was exciting because he was a once in a generation candidate, but the "progressives" didn't think he did enough after too years of rescuing the economy the Republicans ran into a ditch, so they sulked and didn't show up in 2010. If they had shown up then, a lot more would have been done. President Obama also campaigned hard for Hillary in the general election because she would have followed his policies.
Would you have voted for Gore, or was he too "centrist"? Do you think we would be doing something about climate change if he had been elected? John Kerry was too "centrist" for you, so you wouldn't vote for him either? Or would you have just sat those out because it didn't matter. Instead, we got two terms of Bush, with the Middle East blown up by a war based on lies, and economy in the ditch when they handed things over to President Obama.
We need a unified Democratic Party in 2020, and a candidate who can win.
4
@jas2200 I supported Gore and Kerry (after he won the nomination), but I saw then and see now the flaws in their candidacies well before their electoral losses. Centrist democrats don't turn out voters.
You're 100% right about the midterms. Obama's centrist shift kept key demographics home in 2010.
1
Interesting take on Clinton's time as he also got a strong rebuke by the country in the 1994 midterms by losing both the House and the Senate to the Republicans that the Democtats are still trying to recover from. He also allowed for the consolidation in banking of the investment banks and commercial banks which led ultimately to the financial crisis by putting too much power over the markets into the hands of too few. He did some good things as well but too many writers on both sides ignore challenges faced and mistakes made because it does support their narrative.
4
@DC - Clinton built prosperity on a mountain of private debt which continued to grow under Bush II until the banking system almost failed in 2008.
4
All the economic minutia aside, just look at the outcomes that are occurring under American Capitalism: greater concentration of wealth amongst fewer people, declining real median income, and greater political clout in the hands of corporations & the wealthy. I totally support capitalism and free markets as being the most efficient and equitable economic system, and so does Elizabeth Warren.
But she also gets that we need to make American Capitalism work for American workers. Regulating banks, supporting a strong CFPB, enforcing anti-trust regulations and reforming our tax code so that we have less inequality all seem pretty reasonable. It is for these reasons I support her.
And if you want to get into the minutia, supply side won't work in our current circumstances. We need to stimulate demand by increasing the spending power of the poor and middle classes.
When asked if her wealth tax would inhibit the incentives of folks like Jeff Bezos or other tech billionaires, Warren almost laughed. And she's right. When Zuck started Facebook, he didn't have a clue how much money he'd make. He didn't do some calculus that made him think he'd become a billionaire. He simply pursued his idea and knew that it might make him some money. Tax policy had NOTHING to do with his decision. The world economy is awash in capital available for good ideas.
We we don't have is consumer demand from the poor and middle class to make investing in new US productive capacity worthwhile.
15
The outcomes that you note at the top of your comment is the natural outcome of free markets. A substantial middle class is an artificial creation. It only existed because of the confluence of many factors. With the exception of liberal meddling, all of those factors no longer exist. The US isn’t the only standing manufacturing economy. The world is no longer separated by transportation. Knowledge and communication (and idiocy and hate) are free flowing and global. We need to accept this fact, be grateful that it lasted as long as it did, stop trying to recreate it and move on.
1
“But how will you pay for that?”
This question and Warren's answer (thru taxes) is responsible for not only many of our economic problems today, but has been responsible for all of the economic disasters of our past.
This idea that taxes (or borrowing) pay for federal government operations is believed by practically everyone. In fact, so thoroughly do they believe in it, they never offer any facts or even arguments to support this belief. "Everybody knows!" I understand that they believe this because it is true that they have to pay for the stuff they buy. This belief, however, is simply wrong.
The reason these "kitchen table" economic ideas are wrong for the federal government are because there are two significant ways the finances of the government differ from our family finances.
The first is that (through the FED) the federal government can create as much money as it needs out of thin air. Unless you have a printing press in your basement, you cannot do this.
The second is that we need money to conduct commerce and so the banks can make loans. Furthermore, as the economy grows we need more and more money. Where does the money come from, and how does it get to us? Why, it comes to us from the federal government, and we get it when the government spends money and does not take all the money back by taxation, i.e. when the US government has a deficit. So federal deficits are necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) to get money to us so we can buy and sell stuff.
The government does not need your money to pay for government operations. It has an infinite supply of the stuff. We do have to be careful since too much money chasing not enough stuff will cause prices to go up. We may get excessive inflation. One way to avoid that is for the government to take some back, to tax it back. We may not, however, have to have high taxes.
Yes, prices are proportional to the amount of money in the economy, but they are also inversely proportional to the amount of stuff we can produce. If we spend the new money in a way that facilitates more production that will yield more money chasing more stuff which does not lead to excessive inflation.
Using the "kitchen table" ideas the Senator Warren expressed, if we want free child care and it costs $X, then we have to tax $X dollars to pay for it, and the wealth tax does that. If we use the way the finances of our government actually work, we have to see how much free child care would increase GDP which is probably quite a bit since it would allow more people to work. When we do the figures, it may turn out that if we have to raise taxes at all, it may be a lot less than $X.
The point is that she is asking the wrong question. "How do we pay for it?" The right question is "How much will it increase the GDP?
Taxes can also have side benefits. A carbon tax would help combat climate change. A wealth tax would reduce inequality which is bad for the economy since the Rich spend less & speculate more.
5
I was always excited by Sen. Warren's ideas; and her policies target the root cause of problems. I am a capitalist, of first principles. Any ism that benefits only a part of the participants and excessively, is not fair to begin with. To me capitalism means free and fair markets where fish of all sizes can compete fairly. Consumers get a fair market. Employees get fair wages and shareholders get fair returns.
Unfortunately in this country capitalism has been corrupted as any ism can be where humans are involved. Today's capitalists want no restrictions from Govt. They cry about freedom. However if they proved to be fair, no Govt. would want to mess with them. Freedom comes only with fairness. If you abuse your power, you lose your freedom. Simple as that.
Just as any branch of Govt. if left to run unchecked by the other, can run amok and ruin a democracy, so can unfettered anything. Including capitalism. If monopolies as large as a few economies come into existence, it is not good for a country. People like Mitt like to think they are people and 5 jurists thought so too!
Time for bold ideas that inspire and move people. Warren's team needs to be mindful of the Madison ave. folks behind the corporate machinery and set up their own communication strategy to counter the catchy sound bytes criticizing any solid policy for the people coming from her. Mayor Pete said it. Capitalism is attacking our democracy. Time to put it in its place. Where it benefits all, not just the 1%!
10
Capitalism, by definition is about CAPITAL. The clearest definition of capitalism isn’t what it is but what it is not. It is not socialism, communism, Marxism, collectivism, etc. Capitalism ardently rejects every aspect of those “isms.” If it benefits labor, it no longer capitalism. Capitalism is like nature: cold, harsh and often brutal. Only the strong survive.
2
@From Where I Sit
Nature, sir/madam, is about survival, not exploitation. What you see as cold and harsh in nature is just enough to meet the needs of survival. The lion does not horde carcasses of zebras on tax free havens or deny the zebra their fill! And at the water hole they share, yes, the water hole is shared; everyone has enough to quench their thirst. The wise lion knows that his survival depends on the survival of the zebra!
So, let us not even begin to compare capitalism as you define with anything in nature.
By your definition of capitalism, the ideal labor is slave labor!
By your definition of capitalism it is against democratic principles of liberty, equality and fraternity!
Is it really that bad?
1
Capitalism doesn't need reforming. It needs discovering. What we have now isn't capitalism, but a mixed economy -- a mixture of freedom and controls. Warren doesn't want a free economy and a fee people. She wants more controls, fewer freedoms. I think most Americans see that, however dimly.
@Ed
Like the controls that guarantee our bridges don't fall down because the contractor didn't use enough rebar or the right grade of cement? Would you care to fly on a 737 Max 8? The controls are there for a reason and as long as everyone is bound by them, it doesn't interfere with competitiveness. In fact, controls are needed to ensure competition. Microsoft used to have contracts with vendors which stated you could not sell competitors products if you sold theirs. When you have a behemoth that controls the industry by abusive methods, you're destroying capitalism.
2
Your excellent piece on the bold and creative proposals advocated by Senator Warren, Mr. Leonhardt, had me thinking of another Democratic presidential aspirant who also approached the economic and societal problems of his day with courage and indefatigable conviction. Although Franklin Roosevelt was confronted by an America in dire depression, he knew that this deep trough required matching big solutions. Like Roosevelt, the country presently needs another leader who will not shirk from offering and relentlessly fighting for the enactment of untried, unconventional solutions.
20
Elizabeth Warren's detailed and understandable proposals for a more equitable and opportunity driven economy need to reach the American people. She said she'd be happy to appear on Fox News; let's hope she can establish a perch there and on every other media outlet. Her goals represent answers to the hopes and dreams of 99% of us. As D. Leonhardt wrote in this Opinion, she is the candidate with the most knowledge and most developed strategies to narrow the economic gap and expand real opportunities for all the regular, hard working folks. She got the 'beef' and the broccoli, too.
19
Elizabeth Warren is a qualified, candid, people-focused candidate. She is the real deal. She knows what needs to be done, I trust her, and I know she has our best interests in heart and mind. And that matters.
May she be our next POTUS.
28
The notion that any president can personally wrestle the economy one way or another is implausible. Trump's bump only occurred because the people generally felt economically energized because of his election, despite all the economic angst from Professor Krugman. Theory is one thing. The mood of the nation is another. The Times is out of touch with the mood of the nation, I'm afraid to say, as a lifelong reader.
3
@Dave Oedel
Yes, no President can fix the economy. The Fed has a greater impact. However, many have great respect for what Warren did with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The credit reporting agencies were previously unregulated by the federal government, and the CFPB has made a great impact in this area. The agencies have taken significant steps to ensure that people’s credit reports are accurate.
7
@Dave Oedel A bookend to the effect of "animal spirits" you essentially cite as being beyond political control is the macro-key election forecasting by Alan Lichtmann of GWU, whose system is quite accurate (and predicted Trump's close victory). In a recent interview, he stated that Nancy Pelosi's foregoing a Trump impeachment almost ensures his reelection, as a presidential scandal is one of the 13 key macro factors in determining victory. She'd better listen.
1
@Dave Oedel What nation are you referring to?
Instead of a wealth tax on existing wealth:
Tax all dividends and capital gains as ordinary income raising 160 B /year.
Tax unrealized capital gains at death [eliminate step up in basis] raising 40 B /year.
These two together would raise 200 B /y or
2T / ten years.
Re instate the Glass Steagall separation of investment from commercial banking.
Fund the IRS so that a lot of non wage income that under current law should be taxed is in fact not taxed because the IRS does not have the resources to audit tax returns.
11
@david
Agree that reworking existing income tax code is a better solution because:
A. The wealth tax is unfair. The only reason many don’t think so is because it doesn’t apply to them.
B. The wealth tax will be a nightmare to codify and enforce. How will you know if your neighbor must pay? You won’t unless EVERYONE has to compute and swear to their wealth, every year.
@Dave Wealth tax unfair? Much of the wealth was attained by benefiting from a stacked deck.
8
Whether a wealth tax is fair or not is irrelevant.
The probability of enacting a wealth tax is zero.
It is also impossible to administer.
Reforms to the tax code are possible and feasible.
2
I was an adult, already, back from the Army, when tax-cutting, "voodoo", "trickle-down", reaganomics began. The Chicago School of Economics champiand the theory - that claims government is just a drag on an economy.
Four decades later: Wages have stagnated and we have 600,000 people without shelter while 75,000 families with as much wealth as 90% of us received yet another tax cut from Mr. Republican, Donald Trump.
Few economist believe that theory anymore, even though policy hasn't changed. Gee! though - Who would have guessed? Cut taxes and get the most unequal country in the world!?
24
@Tracy Rupp Ask Paulie Ryan why tax cuts are still being pursued. As Dick Cheney put it so pithily, "This is our due."
3
The only way to fix a lack of wealth is to create more of it. Failed 20th century confiscation schemes only end up larding up the wealth creation process and making American goods and services even less competitive than they are now.
2
@ God The workers create all wealth. The capitalists confiscate as much of that value as they can--because they control the means of production--because they at the moment control the state. After our next, Socialist American Revolution, with the parasites kicked out & a planned economy, there will be no more boom and bust cycle or unemployment. The workers will rule, not a few, super rich individuals.
@God We face no lack of wealth. What we face is a wealth distribution problem where .02% of the nation has 90% of it. Your solution is to "Let them eat cake!"
An economy that allows all participants access to the rewards of the work that they do that benefits the responsible growth of the nation as a whole in an equitable way will drive the the top tier nuts. 'Bout time.
11
Wow. Before we contemplate what Democratic presidential candidates can do of consequence, we must take off the blinders and quit being starry-eyed about the "consequential" accomplishments of the past two "Democratic" administrations. We must keep our feet on the ground to know where we are, so that we can know where we are going in order to get anywhere at all.
Among Bill Clinton's "accomplishments" were the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the refusal to regulate financial derivatives, Streetmen Bob Rubin and Larry Summers shouting down Brooksley Born's prescient warnings about the Pandora's Box then being opened on Wall Street.
Barack Obama went completely soft and timid on the banksters, cowering behind "Too Big to Fail" and "Too Big to Jail," abetted by his trenchmen Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, both on sabbatical to DOJ from Covington&Burling, the banksters' reps in DC (and both back there in corner offices as we speak).
"Consequential," yes. Accomplishments? Yes, of the dubious and quasi-criminal kind. Both Clinton and Obama are Rockefeller Republicans in drag. For confirmation of that, look at the walk they walked, not the talk they talked. Glib stealth salesmen for the Reagan Restoration. Hillary would have been more of the same, as will Joe Biden if he runs and, God forbid, succeeds with his blarney and sleight-of-hand - he's a bigger bankster's friend than the Clintons and Obama.
We could use a democrat in the Oval Office. First we have to ensure one is nominated.
38
@Rocky Yes, please, keep it up. And if a centrist Democrat wins the nomination, we can demonize them too. Nothing says "smart politics" like attacking your own. How did Donald Trump convince America he was a populist-- easy. Because the Left convinced America Hilary Clinton was a neoliberal shill in the pocket of "the corporations". Such a winning strategy!
1
I think a Native American candidate for President is long overdue. I support Ms. Warren!
8
What should be obvious is that Republicans want oligarchic capitalism. This is a system intended to enhance the wealth of its business elite without any restrictions. Despite the free market talk, they are against the competition called for by Adam Smith's notion of a market; their aim is not economic efficiency, but profitability. That leads in the end to subsidized, protected, and deregulated monopolies.
It is telling that Ronald Reagan shut down the tracking of industrial concentration by the Commerce Dept. New antitrust cases also fell by 2/3 from 1981-1992. It never recovered under the Obama and Clinton administrations.
Oligarchic capitalism has its model in the Antebellum South, where the plantation owners monopolized state and federal elected offices and judgeships.
We should fear this trend, for our freedom will perish under this system, relegating most to the status of helots and peons.
31
@Kevin Blankinship It should be noted that antitrust activity fell precipitously in the 1970s as well, just coincidentally with Democratic pols going to Wall Street for campaign funds. Voila!
The corruption is deeply bipartisan - the Democrats only look good by comparison:
"...Democratic elites associated with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in response to the recession—happily supporting economic stimulus and generous unemployment benefits—still fundamentally believe the economy functions best with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010." - Noam Scheiber, New Republic, 2013
5
A few years ago, a progressive member of the legislature in my heavily Republican state dismayed me when she predicted in a media interview that a social welfare measure she was proposing would face strong opposition in such a pro-business state. In saying this, she unwittingly played right into the hands of persons who believe that programs that promote health, education, and other forms of personal well-being are inconsistent with a healthy business environment. Instead, she ought to have said that her proposed legislation would face trouble because the state is anti-business.
8
I like Liz and her ideas. I'd like to see her try to realize them as Bernie's VP.
Also, check out presidential candidate Andrew Yang's website: He has more policy ideas than anyone by far.
You will hear more about him. He would make a good Cabinet member for Bernie.
8
I also am thrilled to have actual policy ideas in the mix, though I dread the length of the campaign. My main concern with some of Warren's proposals is this: why must every problem require a federal solution, which inevitably creates serious, sometimes viscerally emotional responses? Nothing is stopping the states, if it fits with their priorities, from universal pre-K or child care, or whatever other family or worker-friendly programs desired. Environmental issues don't respect state borders, and generally deserve national solutions. But I think the founders were right to minimize federal reach, and let states and communities craft solutions that best address their own needs.
3
Ugh. This is all dreamy utopian fantasy. Wealth is property, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Setting that problem aside, legions of regular middle class Americans understand that soaking the rich is not going to increase their income nor lower the cost structure of their lives. Confiscating wealth from the richest will, rather, merely lower prevailing prices for mansions in Greenwich, Bel Air and Atherton, large yachts, etc., but even then not by much. On the other hand, real increases in middle class post tax earnings and/or more free stuff will lead to real increases in the cost of housing in middle class neighborhoods, as now-more-solvent people bid up prices in solid middle class areas. In this way, the real estate markets are like sponges that typically absorb wealth (where buyers have more than of it before and supply is static or nearly so, as it typically will be around major cities -- look at San Francisco) but sometimes give it back (if owners need the money to pay Mrs. Warren's wealth tax or other hiked taxes). These supply and demand dynamics mean that a wealth tax, in addition to requiring constitutional amendment that will never be proposed (much less ratified), will have no real net effect on anyone's quality of life. It will just make the left feel better, including, it would appear, Mr. Leonhardt.
6
Most Americans will favor preservation of the Republic over the right of private property. Making private property the primary principle of society will be the death knell of democracy.
1
@Ted: Real estate is wealth too. No problem. And we'll be happy to take yours, and use it to, say, fund pre-K education and child care, which will actually improve the lives of ordinary Americans. You won't even miss it, because it will lower the price of mansions-- all the rich will just have a little less walkin' around money that they don't need.
But really, I don't want to soak the rich-- I say, eat 'em.
1
Since 2009 the economy has added 10 million new jobs. We have record low unemployment. We have over 7 million job vacancies, 2 million more than existed in 2000 before the dot.com bubble burst. Corporate, sole proprietor, and partnership profits have roughly doubled since 2009. US stock markets are up 300% in the past ten years. The US is now the world's leading producer of energy and we have done more to lower our carbon output than most of the industrialized world. And our economy needs "fixing"?
Capitalism is just fine. The American economy, now growing at 3% again after Democrats spent the entire 2016 campaign saying it could never grow that well again, is fine. The strangling leviathan otherwise known as the Federal Government is what desperately needs fixed. Major US media also needs fixed. Elizabeth Warren's big ideas are the last thing we need to 'fix' either of them.
5
Trump inherited Obama's recovery and gave it a stimulus at its peak, one that is wearing off. Trump's economic track record is miniscule in comparison with Obama's.
You forgot to mention the steady rise in income inequality that suppresses social mobility. Most other western nations offer better economic opportunities. America's system is that of the Medici's: wealth to acquire power - power to protect wealth.
6
@Kevin Blankinship Not quite correct. In fact, not correct at all. Trump inherited an economy that was actually decelerating with the 2016 GDP growing at less than 2%. Income growth last year was the best it has been in more than two decades. Manufacturing job growth is also the best it's been in over two decades. Job openings accelerated after Trump was elected. Small business owner confidence leaped after Trump's election and has not been this high in decades. Trump inherited an economy with tepid growth and helped turn it into an economy with steady to solid growth.
Income inequality will always exist in prosperous economies. Equality only exists in dirt poor countries. Certainly we have a problem with the very wealthy buying their way to access and that's a Democrat problem as well as a Republican Problem. But I'll take America over the economies of Haiti & Cuba.
3
It would be interesting to have warren and clinton debate their theory of change in US Government and politics. Both are experts at policy and I never understood the friction between the two. It would be informative.
I wonder how they look at the current idea that compromise must be between the neo liberals and the liberal wings of the party.... oe Obama proved that there is nothing available for compromise with a non existent rational republican wing.
3
@Tcat Hillary sandbagged Warren on a bankruptcy "reform" bill when Warren was on a bankruptcy commission and Clinton was a freshwoman Senator. Warren's not forgotten the duplicity. Some people learn about the Clinton Ethic early, some late. The American people learned late, and some still haven't learned.
No more Clintons. And that includes Biden and Beto.
1
Thank you for a column that is focused on which Democrat has the best IDEAS, as opposed all the myriad pieces about the horse-race, and who has the best chance of winning.
I am from Vermont, and have been a fan of Bernie Sanders since he was the "socialist" mayor of Burlington (in the 80's). But I think Warren's ideas are better, and I like that she created the Consumer Protection Bureau. For all his great speeches, Sanders hasn't really racked up a lot of great accomplishments.
They are both wise to stay away from the cultural issues. To win this election, the Democrats need to stop accusing Conservatives of being bigots and racists. A big part of Trump's appeal is the backlash against "political correctness". This is not to say that there isn't a lot of racism out there, or that it should be ignored. But shaming people because they don't agree with your position on immigration is counter-productive. If you don't win the election, it doesn't matter how "awoke" you are-- you've lost the battle.
Warren is also wise to shy away from the Socialist label, because while I find it admirable, others will find it a deal breaker. Focus on what you are going to do to make people's lives better. When proposing universal health care, or pre-K, or college, make it universal. Nothing will alienate the wealthy more that being forced to pay for all these goodies via taxes, and then receiving no benefit. Everybody gets Social Security and Medicare- that should be the model.
22
These ideas are only a band-aid.
What is the real reason for income inequality? The people in the bottom half of the income distribution don't have the skills they need to compete in a modern economy. They know less, and have fewer skills, than the blue-collar workers of 1950. If you compare them to the similar workers in a European country like Germany or Sweden, you will see that they are way behind.
On the other hand, the top 10% is too skilled and works too hard. They use their knowledge to direct all the money and power to themselves, and tell everyone else what to do. Again, you won't see a group like this in European countries. Yes, they have affluent business owners, but they don't have a hordes of ruthless managers and professionals out to make money in any way possible.
If we don't tackle the root causes of our inequalities, we won't get anywhere. The wealthy will continue to control all parts of society, because there is no one to oppose them. Any simple-minded reform will simply backfire, as the ruling classes co-opt it and make it serve their purposes.
5
@Jonathan
I appreciate much of this, but I would question whether the big earners are "too skilled" and the people in the bottom half "know less".
This needs to be in context. What the "too skilled" people know are what the market is currently ascribing the greatest value to - such as pushing imaginary money around in the form of 0s and 1s - and hence greater monetary return. Crafts-people were once revered by society and well remunerated. Now not so much.
Maybe it's our value system that needs retraining.
5
A good reason for the weak educational skills is the lack of educational funding.
@Kevin Blankinship - We currently spend much more on education than we spent 50 years ago, and we also spend far more than any other country in the world. The same thing is true with health care.
However, we are not particularly educated or healthy.
"But whatever my — or your — specific objections, Warren is identifying the right problems and offering a coherent vision for a post-Obama Democratic agenda."
It's a relief to NOT read how Democrats are moving too far to the left, or must become more centrist. Warren's attacking problems that are relevant to most Americans, not to sure party platform.
I've advocated for a while that candidates should be required to present not only a slate of high priority issues, but specific plans for how they'll implement solutions to those issues. During debates they should be limited to discussing their own visions and plans, and not allowed to criticize those of other candidates. In 2016, the Republicans twisted themselves into knots trying to counter Trump's insults instead of sticking to their positions.
I don't know if she's the right candidate either, but she's setting a good example for what we should demand from our electoral process.
31
Other than the echo chamber of Warren lovers here, the realists know one thing: not the least for the fact that soak-the-rich progressives are anathema in this country, Senator Warren is unelectable.
6
@John Xavier III. I agree. She is the Second Coming of Hillary Clinton, but with actual ideas, all of them bad, whereas HRC had none, just a slogan ("Stronger Together," really gets your blood racing). Warren wants to break up the two most successful companies in the United States: Amazon and Apple. These companies got to where they are today because consumers--that's us, you and me--voluntarily and freely choose to deal with them and to buy products that, in Apple's case, are truly exceptional. For this crime, Warren wants to break them up. Doesn't even make nonsense.
@John Xavier III: You sound concerned that she might be electable. I think she is.
1
@John Xavier III
She is unelectable because of her policies, her demeanor, her lack of connection with the average voter, and because of hrr use of bogus American Indian identity claims ("Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee") to advance her career.
Robert Francis O'Rourke is more electable than Warren, and he has no policies, says nothing of substance, has no track record, and only claims to be Latino by the bogus use of a first name.
1
I'll be paying close attention to all of the Dem candidates - including Warren. I very much appreciate the stances she has taken, but there is much more policy specificity to come, and it's a bit silly to be trying to identify the best platform right at this juncture.
However. for Leonhardt to say that GDP growth has been "disappointing" shows how stuck in old, useless, and dangerous measurements of wellbeing many of our pundits are. If capitalism needs Warren, it is because we need to stop fetishizing growth. Growth, as we know it, is totally unsustainable, as is the way we consume. The candidate that fails to acknowledge this and to have the bravery to start this conversation with the electorate will not have my vote.
1
Enjoyed your interview very much, thanks. Warren seems to be ready to hit the ground running with plans that are well thought out and practicable. I think her experience in college classrooms gives her people skills she applies to her explanations and her hecklers. She will be able to hold her own in debate. I hope she can carry a majority of us with her.
14
Senator Warren is the only candidate that identifies the problems she gets the big picture. She has solid answers and a proven winner for the average American. I agree with her in breaking up these behemoth corporations. No company should be able to just buy up their compititions. Their only loyalty is to thei shareholders. Her tax policies make sense, in that the ultra wealthiest should help with the tax burden.
I truly believe she will effectively reverse most of the damages done by our dear 45th and even out this tilted field.
I wish her a lot of luck and success.
13
@RC
I'm hoping she can reverse most of the damage done by our dear 39th-45th.
1
It remains to be seen how she does in debates and whether she is the candidate that can beat Trump, but if she doesn't become the Democrat's choice to run for president, the winner would have to be crazy to not tap her for a cabinet post if they were able to beat Trump. A lot of people may not agree with her on specific issues, but no one doubts her commitment to studying and mastering the facts instead of just making stuff up like our current fearless leader.
25
Warren understands the details of how we are being ripped off by major economic players, who also buy politicians to carry their tax cut legislation - for the wealthy.
As Eliz says, it's not "capitalism" per se - it's the way we do capitalism.Predatory capitalism is a virulent form of a deadly disease that is killing life and the natural world. It's the adherence to the demands of those who control capital - maximizing short term profits at ALL costs that benefit a few. Add the 2nd root cause of most major problems - extreme individualism - the sole focus on only "me and mine" and no care for the common good. Both are manifestations of a culture with a lost soul.
The underlying values that have devolved over decades, where the wealthy few have been in control, must be dealt with by real leadership. The next President - the next Dem nominee (it won't be trump) must speak clearly, courageously, honestly with the American people, hold weekly fireside chats, speak truth the power and lay out a true, distinct, compelling vision of the future where the journey will lead the the future where all life can flourish. If we tweak, we're dead. Climate change, predatory capitalism, lack of real leadership, an unsustainable way of living, operating our businesses and economy, extreme militarism and an extraordinarily inept fool occupying our White House is poisonous to our children's health and well being.
What is the role and purpose of our economy, our society. Truth, love.
17
Thank goodness Senator Warren's proposals are actually being covered as news and discussed in opinion columns such as this one. I cannot recall a single example where a Hillary Clinton proposal received mainstream coverage.
14
@LMG
She had few ideas of her own, aside from healthcare in the 1990s. Warren has been working on this stuff for years, rather than joining the Senate Arms Committee to position herself for the Presidency.
1
David, thank you for this.
Elizabeth is the smartest, most policy-oriented candidate in this field, and it would be a shame if Democrats allowed trivial considerations to get in the way of her receiving the electoral support that she deserves.
Can she beat Donald Trump? Absolutely, no question about it.
63
"Politics is not an expertise competition. The nominee should be, and most likely will be, the candidate who best inspires voters."
Ah, but shouldn't expertise, intelligence, ideas be the hallmarks of the best candidate? Donald Trump "inspired" voters through the use of hatred, fear and dishonesty. We need to recognize the limitations and dangers of that metric, and choose a better course.
21
Warren's big idea is called "Redistribution" - and it is not new - trust me - it has been tried - to disastrous results.
But we have to go down this path every few decades for ascetic reasons... to clean the capitalist palate so to speak.
2
@SteveRR, yes, redistribution is nothing new. For the past nearly four decades, it's been ongoing, from workers and the middle class to the corporate and the ultra-wealthy.
It's still going on, and it's time to stop it and recreate the conditions that underlay the greatest period of prosperity this nation has seen, as DL's column points out.
37
@John D.
I think you may be referring to confiscation as opposed to redistribution... and it is a myth.
Middle class folks and the 'workers' have seen nothing of note confiscated to the Amazons, the Googles, the Apples of the world.
They just want some of the booty without the work and risk of building these engines of commerce.
I was a Sanders guy last time around, but if I think of who can provide the actual leadership to take on the challenges our country faces it is Warren. I don't know if she will win, but she is who we need.
82
"Warren’s grasp of the country’s problems does not necessarily mean that she should be the Democratic nominee for president. Politics is not an expertise competition. The nominee should be, and most likely will be, the candidate who best inspires voters."
Perhaps, but we are in big trouble if the candidate with a firm grasp of the country's problems and the expertise to solve them does not inspire us.
27
Why should anyone believe that a wealth tax, which has failed in a number of nations in Europe, would work here in the US. Why must we recycle failed European policy?
9
@John
Please review your understanding of the many versions of European wealth taxes that are in use, and those that are being dismantled as having failed.
Senator Warren's proposal is for a tax beginning at $50 Million, rather than beginning at @800,000 euros, for example, in France.
Suggesting hers would fail in the US as a result is not a logical conclusion.
13
@John
Where has it failed in Europe?
2
The skeptical, dismissive and occasionally hostile comments in this forum, I suspect come almost exclusively from men—men who likely have never heard Elizabeth Warren speak in person, or taken the measure of her commitment to helping people. We talk a lot about "populism" these days, but she is the only real populist in the race.
Helping people is where Warren shines. She emphasizes the "ALL" in the equation, and focuses on programs that Paul Krugman calls, "...workable, affordable, and would do a huge amount of good." He adds, "...the field needs more policy ideas like this: medium-size, medium-priced proposals that could deliver major benefits without requiring a political miracle." http://tinyurl.com/y4ay3qj2
It's conventional wisdom that the Democrats are split between left and center. That's a false dichotomy. The real difference is between those who pursue identity politics, or quixotic goals, to gain attention and further their political ambitions, and those (few) who genuinely want to help people.
83
@Ron Cohen Elizabeth Warren is recycling failed European policy and the American media acts like its fresh and brilliant. That says all I need to know.
Sorry, but we don’t need another multimillionaire like Sanders telling us about the evils of Capitalism. Their words might sound more sincere if they weren’t being mouthed by people who made a large portion of their wealth feeding at the public trough.
They are both just the opposite side of the Trump coin....telling their base what they want to hear.
5
She’s the most intelligent of the Dem candidates, a superb thinker. And she and Bernie Sanders are the only ones in the field with real vision and passion.
At the opposite extreme are Biden and Beto, the Dems’ two worst options, threatening to turn the whole thing into a contest of personalities rather than ideas. Watch them wind up as the ticket..
122
@Hector Bates
A man after my own heart. I get disturbed when I hear people dissing warren - never for her ideas, but because of what they have been told her ideas are---- she is the only candidate so far to explicitly lay out plans to deal with some of the issues that challenge us
43
@Hector Bates
I agree with you except for your last sentence. Let's not give that outcome any juice.
7
This is an excellent article about Elizabeth Warren, however the author forgot that she is the ONLY politician who realizes that unless we solve the cancer of “citizens united”, uncontrollable money in politics, our Jeffersonian democracy will not survive. She put a position paper on how to implement an effective policy to begin to cure this cancer, I believe published in this paper. While, other democrats have addressed this problem, no one can match her zealotry in providing a solution. The country can elect any other democrat who can also address our current problems of economic inequity, infrastructure, education, taxation, healthcare, rule of law etc., however no other politician can effectively dissect our problems and provide a sensible solution.
One of America’s greatness is our economic model which creates products and services that dominates the globe but without a level playing field, this economic model will die. Professor Warren realizes that to save capitalism from itself is to save America. She has the makings to be one of our greatest presidents. The country has a Roosevelt moment, will we make the right choice again?
103
@beachboy
I think there might just be another candidate who has been inveighing against Citizens United for years, one who repeatedly calls for a constitutional ammendment to overturn it. Let me see now . . . who was that?
In fact there are several Dems who talk the talk about CU. Sanders and Warren walk the walk about it, though, imo.
7
@K kell
As much as I love Berie, he sounds like a socialist who wants to replace capitalism, where our Queen Elizabeth is a capitalist who wants to reform the system. No one can touch her!
5
@beachboy,
Sorry to highjack a Ms. Warren party, but a correction is in order.
On day one, Sanders predicted the disastrous effects of this case:
This ruling will “give control of the political process in the United States to the wealthiest and most powerful institutions in the world and the candidates who support their agenda. Instead of democracy being about one-person one-vote, it will now be about the size of a company’s bank account.”
~ Sen. Bernie Sanders, January 21, 2010
Senator Sanders has been fighting in congress since, to end/curtail citizens united.
2012:
https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics/overturn-citizens-united
2013:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031213-CUAmendmentFactSheet1.pdf
2014:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/senate-advances-constitutional-amendment-to-undo-citizens-united
Ms. Warren is obviously not the only one.
10
Beto appears like an idealistic teenager with no solid point of view and too much emotion.
Warren is solid.
I hope the electorate sees the difference.
211
@EC
"Beto appears like an idealistic teenager with no solid point of view and too much emotion."
This is exactly how I described Bernie Sanders in 2016, and why I voted for the adult on the stage then - Hillary.
6
Nevertheless, she persisted
-Elizabeth Warren during Senate discussion over the Sessions nomination. Senator McConnell told her to take her seat. Nevertheless, she persisted.
Elizabeth Warren will get my vote, she is fearless.
333
Elizabeth Warren should be fine where she is. She is not presidential material. USA does not belong only to the Socialists, it is also a country for capitalists, investors, entrepreneurs, farmers, average Americans small and large businessmen and women, none of whom she represents. If Warren becomes president God help America.
8
@Girish Kotwal I find this continued reference to socialism which seem to be so popular now as a easy way of saying "bad" but with a fancy word to be confusing. Most of the new economic ideas which are being proposed, by Ms. Warren and other, are no more rambunctious or "socialist" than the ideas put forward by John Maynard Keynes 70 years ago. However, in those days, when we thought an idea was "bad" we explained why rather than use slogans such as "socialism." Ms. Warren is no more a socialist than she is a Maoist.
45
@Girish Kotwal We don't have capitalism and we don't have socialism. We have a mix of the two, because neither in its pure form works.
17
Slapping a label like socialist only meant to evoke dark emotions. if you read the article with open mind, you would find out that she is for a capitalism that works for all. if you are going to call her any name, fair capitalist would fit. she is from a working family who struggled. Her efforts alone brought her to teach at Harvard. You could say she understands America dream better than most.
10
Ideas and clever words alone are not enough. You need personality: a presence and voice that commands attention. Regardless of the merits, people whose votes you want have to like you. I know this from trying jury cases for 47 years (now retired). It's the same in politics.
Ideas aside, Warren doesn't have the other right stuff to get elected. But. She would be extremely (no pun) effective as the next Attorney General or in charge of the SEC or EPA. That's where her immense talents work best for the nation. After we dump Trump, it's going to take people like her to cleanup the harm. She has a place in our nation's future, but not as President.
2
And who is the person with presence and attention-commanding voice that you desire? (I'll take good ideas and a solid person myself.)
24
@John I tend to agree but will continue to send my money to the Warren campaign as she develops more a a 'presidential' demeanor because, yes, demeanor evidence is probative.
1
@John "Likability" is mostly a masculine attribute isn't it? It's hard for women to be intelligent, confident, passionate, tough, principled, determined and also "likable." I'll take all the above. I don't need to have a beer with president.
Warren is a policy wonk, which of whatever political disposition, is exactly what we need after Trump.
23
Elizabeth Warren inspires me. Her supposed failure to connect with voters is belied by the amounts of money she has been able to raise for the Democrats, and her popularity on the campaign trail - she has made campaign speeches on behalf of many candidates.
I think the accusations of shrillness are in part literally due to the fact that she has a higher pitched voice. Her anger has been targeted towards the egregiously entitled wealthy and powerful, and is completely merited. Others choose to disparage the disadvantaged and stoke outrage over people at the bottom of the economic ladder - whether they be illegal immigrants, or people on welfare.
No drama Obama was popular personally, but was not successful at making the case for the Democrats agenda with the public. The election of Donald Trump refuted the notion that America was looking for a conciliator, and former conservatives in the never-Trump camp who now critique Warren for being too extreme seemed to have no problem with Mitch McConnell and his endless opposition to Obama.
We need to get beyond the superficial aspects of a candidate and listen to what they have to say. Low key people like Mitch McConnell fly under the radar, but Trump's economic agenda is essentially his as well.
48
"The nominee should be... the candidate who best inspires voters."
If the choice is between inspiration and competence, I would want my leader to be competent.
Maybe Warren will inspire, but she is certainly very competent. In my eyes that means she will be a very good President. This pundit desire for and emphasis on "inspiration" is just wishing on pixie-dust.
97
@abo
And in today’s world how is competence not inspiring?
8
At this point, after enduring the worst human being ever to attain to high office, competence IS inspiring. Also honesty, relatable experience and genuine intelligence. Actually, every quality that is the opposite of Blondie.
7
Wealth taxes have been tried in other countries with little increase in revenues if any. Many of those have been abandoned. Raising $250B from such a tax assumes that the wealthy will just bend over and let her have her way. Not happening.
Saying a clear majority favors a wealth tax is hardly a high bar, since everyone likes someone else to pay taxes. Universal childcare sounds good until the costs come due; when that $250B fails to be raised, guess who's going to be paying the deficit. And of course that's going to be in competition for spending with all the other progressive programs.
You can't reduce inequality by taxing the top; you need to raise the bottom, and that happens by keeping the economy strong, not stoking class envy.
3
@kwb But tax cuts favoring the already-rich are OK? Count me as class-envious.
16
@kwb
I would suggest that you've got it backwards - keeping the economy strong doesn't raise the bottom, but raising the bottom keeps the economy strong. When the bottom rises, it can spend more, which increases demand, which increases the need for workers to meet that demand.
As a bonus, you also avoid the French revolution.
7
@kwb
Trickle-down. It’s worked so well, hasn’t it?
Sen. Warren's message seems to be that we're only a regulation or policy away from utopia. While important, I believe that Gen Sperling's advice is right "politicians shouldn’t focus on policy mechanisms. They should focus on principles". Trump's populists will not be defeated by policy proposals. Sperling's message to focus on 'Dignity for All' is the best way forward.
1
The American voter needs to revisit Elizabeth Warren's role in developing and passing legislation to form the Consumer Finance Protection Board (CPFB).
Few can question the aims of the CPFB, and generally, the implementations have met with favor, tepid favor but, favor nonetheless.
The powers in the Treasury Department, where Warren worked at the time, good Democrats all, ended up vehemently against her appointment as Director...to the point that she didn't even receive the courtesy of being nominated.
The CPFB legislation has, in part, been found to be unconstitutional...the provision that the Director, an employee of the Executive Branch could only be replaced by vote of Congress. That put an extrodinary amount of power into the hands of an unelected bureaucrat and tied his tenure in office to the vagaries of political forces.
Warren's prescriptions for reforming the way the Executive Branch does business and for removing money from politics are certainly interesting and need to be viewed both as plausible and noble. However, they need to be investigated for the degree to which they disregard the distributed powers of our body politic and the effects that they might have on the economy in general.
Liz Warren is not the person to lead conversations nor is it wise to allow her authority over that which is created.
Sen. Warren has shown herself to be somewhat authoritarian in her style, and will surely render inoperative any positive enhancements to our democracy.
1
More than corporate governance and regulatory reform, Warren has defined her campaign as anti-corruption. Many who were involved in the Tea Party movement earlier in this decade claimed they were against crony capitalism, which she wants to end. It’s ridiculous that they would not consider supporting her.
15
Maybe she should have lied and deceived them that she was on their side, like Trump
These ideas of universal child care, fair taxation of wealth, protections for consumers in lending, and many other smart-thinking proposals of Senator Warren's are not just current ideas of hers which she's suddenly embraced because they're popular now.
As this article points out, Warren's personal life experience has shaped the directions in which she's moved her entire adult life--not just for a presidential candidacy, but through decades of concerted efforts at fairness and reform.
That's important: Warren's presidential aspirations come from long experience, a full and seasoned understanding of this nation's economic, political, and social needs: a bold willingness to put the combination to work for overdue fundamental systemic change.
Now is not the time for incremental bowing and scraping (yet again) to the existing system which ultimately is just the same old version of pandering to the entrenched corporate/wealth funded/-led democracy we've been living with for close to half a century; and where has that gotten us, really? If it has worked so well, why the divisive cynicism these days? Isn't deep malcontent really masked economic insecurity?
Let's get it on for heaven's sake. This isn't shocking stuff Warren is proposing; it's common sense, and could be the beginning of more opportunities for more people--democratically functional economics...yes!
Senator Warren deserves a long and thoughtful hearing by the American people--regardless of political party.
152
Rather than a wealth tax why not make the wealthy less wealthy. A much higher minimum wage,no more billion dollar corporate stock buy backs, no more preferential treatment for capital gains. These are just a few things that would put more money in the hands of the middle class. Second, our health care system is bloated with huge profits for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and many so -called not for profit hospitals. This is not true in national health care systems. The 401k programs are also designed to have huge managerial fees. Then there is all that corporate welfare handed out every year. What ever it takes to put more money in pay checks and wring out bloated profits.
14
It remains to be seen if Sen. Warren can channel her inner trust-busting, "malefactors of great wealth" Theodore Roosevelt in a way that connects with the voters. Ideas are great, but you have to be able to communicate them, Warren risks being too strident and too wonky even if she has a monopoly on good ideas. As a progressive Democrat, I hope i'm wrong, but being nearby fear that I may not.
3
Some big Tech companies are plainly monopolies. What company competes with Facebook? Zuckerberg was asked exactly that question before a congressional committee. Microsoft was certainly a defacto monopoly for a couple of decades, but not so much anymore. In the fast paced world of big tech how do we even define a monopoly? Companies can come and go so quickly. Some of the biggest have basically one product, like Facebook, or one class of products in the way that Apple sells computer-ish devices. They might meet the old definitions of monopoly.
What about Amazon? Well they sell a variety of branded products,those are a tiny fraction of their total business. How can a reseller of other people's products be a monopoly? EBay and many other online markets certainly exist. Does developing the best delivery system in the world make you a monopoly? You might want to consult Fedex, UPS and the postal service about that. How do amazon prime and Amazon Web Services fit in to the monopoly description?
I certainly support Senator Warren's intention, but as always, the devil is in the details. We will need not just good intentions, but clear legal definitions to have enforceable policies.
3
"Warren has jumped out to an early lead in the ideas primary. "
I am so glad that at least one reporter is focused on the "ideas primary" instead of the usual focus of those who cover politics: the polls, the fundraising "primary", personalities and gaffes.
Until ideas become the focus of reporting on candidates for public office, a thoughtful person with strong policy proposals can be dismissed as "boring" while an entertainer with simple-minded slogans can be called a "good candidate" (see, e.g. 1980; 2016)
216
If capitalism can't deliver on its promises, then people will want something else. So let's fix capitalism, and please stop calling that socialism. The last thing Marx wanted was a version of capitalism that didn't grind people down and keep them there.
16
Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has zero chance of getting the nomination. Not being a liberal myself, I'm suspicious of all Democrat hopefuls, but reading many comments about Ms. Warren in left-leaning publications I notice that even most liberals don't like her. The bottom line seems to be that she's aggressively grating, disdainful of other views, seems to like to fight over everything, and is unwilling to modify her positions to get things done. Does that sound like someone else we know? Can you imagine a leftist Trump? Even liberals seem not to want that.
1
@Ronald B. Duke
So when did she refuse “to modify her positions to get things done?” This is more of an unfounded personal attack than a reasoned critique of her positions.
1
@Ronald B. Duke If she was a man I think she'd be a great President...and the slam-dunk Dem nominee...and nothing like Trump. I think she'd be a cross between a Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. But because she's a she, and there are too many insecure men in America to handle any woman as President, she wouldn't have a chance of winning, especially with the Electoral College. But maybe as VP, or Amy Klobuchar or Kamilla Harris in the VP spot.
@Ronald B. Duke , grating is what men who are uncomfortable with powerful women say to grind them down. She’s shrill, unlikeable, graying, tries too hard, whatever. To many women’s eternal shame, we let Hillary Clinton get tarred with that brush. NEVER AGAIN. This time, we are calling this out. It’s sexist and wrong.
I appreciate Warren because she is one of the few politicians who cares about the middle class and has proposals to help them. The unions used to be the middle class's pathway to a reasonably comfortable life. Somehow it's become acceptable that this path has closed. Feckless politicians have sold out their constituencies to corporate masters who make campaign contributions. Just look at the distribution of wealth in this country over the past few decades, and see how we Americans have been manipulated to accept this.
I'm not a fire breather. I'm in my 60s, retired comfortably with my pension and Social Security. I just want the same opportunity for my children when they get to my age.
135
I like many of Elizabeth Warren's ideas.
But I find her demeanor shrill, unpleasantly combative and nervous.
She doesn't come across as someone who could be president.
That's true of some of the others who are running.
But nobody's as off-putting as she is.
5
@fast/furious
Really? I see her demeanor as passionate and energetic. Eye of the beholder.
Would you vote for someone with a demeanor that pleases you more but has worse policies?
3
@fast/furious: Have you ever listened to the voices of Trump or McConnell? Or is it just women's voices that are problematic? Because both of those men have horribly grating voices.
1
@fast/furious
This comment is telling. There’s the “shrill” word again, and who knows what “unpleasantly combative” means. Must women always be pleasant even when they’re being combative?
In interviews, she shows encyclopedic knowledge of the issues and is thoughtful. I’ll take competence over personality.
2
Glad to see a mildly positive article about a progressive candidate in The NY Times by a staff writer/OpEd pundit.
Liz Warren has superlative ideas, full stop. It is debatable whether those ideas are needed by capitalism or what I would depict as social democracy or Bernie would call democratic socialism.
She is for predistribution as opposed to Bernie’s redistribution. I think a joint ticket (I could care less about the order of the names) would have the best chance to save the nation from the abyss of fascism. Warren and Sanders (or the other way around) would be our FDR.
Clinton and Obama were center right politicians and therefore Presidents.
We need progressives now.
I am hoping to have David Leonhardt in our corner. Maybe soon I will even say Maazel Tov!
110
@Blunt. Name one superlative idea.
Stop trying to make Elizabeth Warren happen. It's not going to happen.
Right now the prediction market has her trading at an implied likelihood of winning of 3% (tied with Corey "Spartacus" Booker). I don't put much stock in the prediction markets, but I'd say that number roughly reflects her likelihood of winning (maybe I'd give her a few points but no more).
If I were a Democrat instead of an independent, I'd be very concerned about this field. For some reason Democrats keep deeming the people who just lost as the "hope of the party." Beto may have done better than expected in the recent Senate run, but he lost to Ted Cruz (you do remember who beat Ted Cruz recently?). Bernie was the hottest he ever was or ever will be in 2016, and he couldn't even beat Hillary. Recall that Hillary lost in 2016 to the same guy Bernie would now have to be beat. I don't care what the head to head polls say; if I were Trump, I'd be delighted to see a 79 year old Bernie on the other side of a debate. Biden would have been competitive last time, but now he's too old and he's already lost two White House bids. I know Trump's old too, but he's the President now (much harder to say he's too old for the job...he's currently doing). If there isn't an injection of new blood I think Dems are dead in the water. What you Dems ought to be doing is figuring out how to convince Gavin to run. He's clearly got some baggage, but he's a winner, and you all need to get on board with a winner or lose.
6
Elizabeth Warren has great ideas. But she has no chance against Trump.
Thanks to the antiquated Electoral College, the Democratic nominee for President must click with the people in the Rust Belt who will decide the election. Elizabeth Warren is not that person. It's not fair, but it's reality.
3
@Joyce
Actually, she talks about the economic issues that people in the Rust Belt care about.
18
@Joyce
Don't be so quick to count Warren out... If she's shown anything it's an uncanny ability to get under Donnie J's skin and bring out the worst in him. So far Trump hasn't imploded from his own hyperbole, but there will be a day of reckoning for him.
His big slam on Warren is the Pocahontas thing but compared to Donnie's wealth that expands on a credit app and contracts on a tax return she's a breath of fresh air with good political instincts. Every dollar that Trump evades on taxes is either paid by the rest of us or added to the debt with interest. If his tax returns are subpoenaed that could be his demise.
And then there's the wall... How many schools could be funded with that money?
Trump plays to our fears and bigotries and I'm embarrassed to think that's worth 40% of the vote, but it is what it is.
13
Mr. Leonard should read his own column. The candidates who have real ideas, he says, are Warren and (last time) Sanders. All the candidates should be like them! But the nominee shouldn't /be/ them -- no, it should be Biden, a nonentity who would have no name recognition had he not been plucked from obscurity by Obama, a Democratic Palin.
Tell me again, please, why we shouldn't nominate one of the candidates who have good ideas and inspire voters, but should instead pick a candidate who's as inspiring as a paperclip and doesn't have any ideas?
14
@Brian Harvey
Bravo! And right on.
3
Elizabeth Warren is the smartest person running so far and also the person with the closest connection with ordinary people. I will enthusiastically support her.
The Democratic Party has, for too long, been trying to move the ball to the thirty yard line. That might slow down the other team, but it's not going to win any games. The goal has to be the end zone, always; you may not always get there, but you team will be more inspired and your supporters will give you more support.
As Professor Warren said, big ideas are sometimes easier to achieve.
There are others in the race I like as well. Bernie, of course, though it's more difficult to imagine him willing. Inslee would be a good choice--executive experience. And Harris, though young, understands how the game works.
I will, of course, enthusiastically support anyone the Democrats nominate, but please don't nominate Hillary Jr. (you know who I mean).
58
A wealth tax, or taxing capital gains as ordinary income, are ideas I could get behind. But I wouldn't use it for universal childcare or pre-K, as I don't like the idea of the government raising kids during their early years. Parents are not replaceable. Instead, I would use the money for targeted tax cuts for the middle class and to bring the deficit back down from the Trump tax fiasco.
3
@Steve as a (very) long time voting Democrat I would oppose any universal child care from birth program free for "millions" (as she says)...please lets's deal with the issues in this post, infrastructure, climate change, and shoring up Social Security (eliminate the cap on SS tax), and Medicare...
1
@Steve Don't you think with all their educated experts that the government can raise kids better? I know that they can raise kids better than white people have. Parents are replaceable, government know-it-all are not.
I do believe the media is more critical and petty about women candidates. I noticed this in particularly with Hillary. For instance, they drum away at the gossip much harder and drift away from the message. The Benghazi and email drama were non-issues that trump created and the GOP stayed on ad nauseum. Had the media ignored it we may have had better results.
Elizabeth Warren has already been taunted and mocked by the GOP and she deserves to be heard by the American voter. I will be voting for her because she’s brilliant, hard working and honest.
176
@Jan
Politico nailed it today with this:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/15/beto-orourke-backlash-women-1223073
4
@Jan. Well, to say that Trump is a non-indicted sexual predator is just hitting one of his multi-part of his character flaws. Will Democrats bring this to right wing Evangelical churches? Would it make any difference to churches members who now oppose what they see as an invasion of the country from foreigners, but don’t really care about predations of women? A real question is how to make Republicans abandon their hypocrisies. I do not see it happening.
But Democratic candidates do have to attack Trump directly on those issues by which his voters are most energized. Warren might be able to do that if she presents her economic policies in ways that show middle class Trump voters what’s in it for them that Trump has been unable to deliver.
4
She wants to break apart private enterprises that have broken no laws. She's more extreme than Trump. Where is he outrage?
5
@Mannyv
All the democratic candidates are more extreme than Trump. The reason you don't see any outrage is because these people actually think that breaking up private enterprise or stealing more money from those who have money will make their individual lives better. Really it is all about revenge.
1
@Mannyv
Well, there is antitrust law. Whether or not the private enterprises in question are in violation is a matter for the courts to decide, but Ms. Warren evidently wants to put it to the test for the benefit of of consumers. This does not seem extreme.
32
Yes, since 1890.
Warren will have the biggest target on her back of any Democratic candidate. The fact that her proposals are large and game changing will have every wealthy Republican, major corporation, and conservative news outlets waiting to slander and tear her apart. She is striking where they live, there ever increasing net worth. It is all hands on deck for these band of pirates to not let her tip over their prized decades long built apple cart.
If you think things were tough between Trump and Clinton you ain't seen nothing yet. When Trump is challenged on anything he has proven tp be the meanest and nastiest bully on the block and Warren being a women will not stop him , it hasn't in his personal life either.
I admire Warren greatly, but I really don't think she or her follwers realizes what is waiting for her.
11
@Babel: I think she knows exactly what she's in for and fully capable of handling it. People under-estimate her. She could rise to the Trump challenge.
56
@Babel
Warren has demonstrated a knack for getting under Trump's skin and bringing out the worst in him.
Tweet like you mean it next year.............!
1
I agree that all education should be free and of the highest quality. This country is successful because many of us have been granted the opportunity to learn and build this great economy. I attended City University of New York over 40 years ago when it was just about free. It obviously didn't bankrupt the economy or reduce wealthy households from becoming even wealthier. Of course, we need to promote a Democrat who has the greatest chance of defeating Trump. And, at the same time, we need to promote ideas such as Elizabeth Warren's and others who will increase middle class incomes and all educational advancement.
17
@Sheilah Goodman education should be much more affordable, but not free except for special circumstances...
4
@Jim
She's talking about the colleges in the City University and State University of NY system being free, with conditions, which they are again, since 2017. So it's not a matter of should or shouldn't.
https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-excelsior-scholarship
2
I hope she stays relevant in the race long enough to force the other, more popular candidates to address the great issues she raises. But it's unlikely Senator Warren will catch fire well enough to be the spokesperson for capitalist reform she hopes to be. The wealth tax is never going to happen in 21st century America, but it helps to have such a bold idea put on the table.
I believe there is a maximum wealth that should be allowed.
For example, a 100% tax on all wealth over 100 million, would allow a family to live a life of extreme decadence until death, but not be large enough to allow one to buy, directly or indirectly, political office.
12
The economy is doing really well. I don't see any need for Senator Warren or any other politician to fix the economy. If it is not broke, don't fix it.
8
@Driven, I keep hearing that the economy is doing very well, but how can it be so when so many people, who are the makers of said economy, are not doing well at all? I’m a capitalist. I do not believe in the state owning or controlling the means of production, but I also do not believe that anyone can accumulate such obscene wealth as we are seeing now, especially not captains of finance as they make absolutely nothing, just by working hard. Were that be the case most people would be doing great and that is obviously not the case.
Capitalism has proven to be the best environment for human growth, but when left to its own devices it can, as history has shown and as we can see it happening right now, lead to very bad outcomes. Anything that could save it from its own excesses should be seriously considered if not fully welcome.
14
Interesting to consider that had she been granted maternity leave, she likely would not have attended law school and started down the path she finds herself on today.
4
A wealth tax is asset seizure pure and simple. How do you reconcile seizing an asset when all property taxes are paid and the owners may have bad or even negative cash flow? The basic message for Robin Hood Warren and her merry men of asset seizure is the economy is very strong and we need to find a way to ruin that. A tax on assets is impossible to ascertain.
7
@Miguel in Ft. Laud. A wealth tax is a property tax on intangible personal property. Something we had in Florida until Jeb became Governor and the R's took over both our state Senate and Reps.
10
Warren is the only person running right now who I would vote eagerly and happily, and not merely because she's not Trump, or that she could beat Trump (though both are true).
She not only has the right ideas and values, but she has the political skills and personal temperament to be president. I love Bernie, and he's done a great service to the country simply by having run in 2016 and put a lot of his ideas into the discussion, but he's not presidential material.
Please, Ms. Warren, run as you, and resist the brilliant ideas of pollsters and professional campaign engineers who will make you sound like a cobbled together, poll-tested robot.
And most of all, please, please don't talk like a college grad student social justice warrior obsessed with race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
73
Sometimes Warren is bold and I like her ideas (for example consumer protection or more taxes on the super wealthy). Sometimes she is reckless and I cringe (for example crazy unexecutable ideas like breaking up tech companies instead of building good policies on fake news, privacy etc). Sometimes she shows terrible judgement like the way she handled her ancestry. All the time I feel preached too and lectured at when she talks.
Add it all up and I am not on her train yet.
5
Too bad Warren has the charisma of a 5th-grade teacher. There's a reason why her poll numbers stubbornly stay so low. She's totally well-known, so "name-recognition" is no excuse for her. The masses just don't gravitate to her. Conversely, they DO gravitate to Bernie, who's a much better political speaker and who comes across as much more humanly authentic than Warren. Trump was smart to call her "Pochahontas," since her phony claim of "Native American" heritage to get a leg up on university admissions is just a low-rent version of the bribery of the rich which has infuriated us all lately. I'm a lefty, so I'd definitely prefer Warren to an outright neoliberal puppet of Wall St. like Booker or Biden. But there's no comparison between Warren and Bernie's capacity to built an economic "revolution" in America. Finally, what a total phony, and traitor to progressive economics, Warren was in 2016. She first sat on her hands instead of backing Bernie as he was taking off. Then she actually worked against him with Goldman Sach's hand-puppet Hillary. And we're supposed to reward this shameless sell-out for her own personal ambition?
7
@Fred White I truly like Bernie and love how passionate and authentic he is. The problem I have with him lately is he seems to be promising too much. We need someone to address a few key issues that are attainable in a presidential term. When he was doing a town hall he seemed to promise everything to everyone. Maybe we can’t expect free everything for everybody. I think a candidate has to put reasonable goals out there and not be afraid to say that some things just aren’t realistic such as expecting private elite colleges to be free, which one young woman asked for.
9
So you think the next president should be inspiring. Obama was inspiring but lacked courage and was often naive. His presidency was a disappointment. If inspiring is your number one criterion then you should plug Beto O’rourke. He looks and sounds good and he wows the crowds. But I think you want something more or you wouldn’t have written this piece. So far Warren is the only one who really understands the economy and how it effects politics as you and I do. An understanding I have gained, at least in part, from your writing.
14
@JFC
What I would like to see (likely won't) is a Warren/Beto pairing. Warren for ideas and Beto for charm.
2
I completely agree we need a true change in thinking and basic economic assumptions. I do not yet know for whom I will vote in 2020 but I know that I will only vote for a candidate who is fully committed to single payer healthcare—not incremental changes that purport to offer private insurance to currently uninsured (ie what Obamacare offered).
This country’s for-profit, mainly employer-based health insurance system is a failure that bankrupts families and keeps workers stuck in jobs. It’s a disgrace.
5
@M Hoberman How do you solve the problem with access with a Single payer health system. What will happen when everyone wants to go to the very best doctor, the very best hospital, etc. Who gets to be first, how long will we have to wait, what happens to the second and third tier facilities and doctors. Why should one person get better health care than another, we’ll ask. Suddenly the best hospitals and doctors will go private and the rich will have exclusive access. Nothing will change.
1
Warren has already shown that she can be manipulated, so I wouldn't count on her to fix anything with the economy.
3
Why are we endlessly debating, isn't clear that capitalism in it's present form is absolutely unpalatable for majority of this country, what's with skyrocketing income disparity, the pathetic since of entitlement, the rigged institutions, the absence of morality, gaming the system any way possible, insatiable, gluttonous greed of 1%, scandals on enormous scale, hitting avery aspect of our lives, our children growing up in such malfunctioning, morally bankrupted society...how do you think they will turnout.
This constant fear mongering mostly coming from the very wealthy, who obviously prefer to live in plutocracy/oligarchy, just ask any Russian oligarch, they will tell they live in Socialism, just like our own billionaires.
That kind of so called socialism, works for Putin and his criminal, lawless gang, it's obviously works for trump and his gang.
But please explain to people these country, like Russia, China, Venezuela aren't socialist , they are dictatorships plain and simple.
On another hand Scandinavian countries doing just fine in their democratic socialism, that allow for much more balanced and equal system. They managed to mix the best of both modus operandi and succeeded, so if they did it, why can't we?
If Elizabeth Warren calls herself a capitalist, it's fine with me, more her please.
What we have now is brutal, merciless, crooked structure that will definitely bring more revolts and disturbances in a country, we can count on that, particularly with this president.
17
@faivel1 I guess you fail to see that the Scandinavian countries are almost all white, homogeneous countries. Here we know that all (especially old men) white people have overwhelming privilege.
Don't you think that we have always had a brutal, merciless, crooked structure. I did not notice any great society under Obama or Bush. I did not care for Clinton but during his presidency many people enjoyed a good economy.
I think that there definitely more revolts and disturbances in the 60's. both in the 1960's and even in the 1860's. Just go back in the NY Times Machine ( which is excellent) to see how times were in the past, both during Republican and Democratic administrations.
1
Sorry David, you are beating a dead horse. By lying about her ethnic heritage and building a career on that, she did something far worse than those caught in the college admissions cheating scandal. This issue is just not going to go away however hard one wishes.
8
Capitalism is a beast and only the socialist Ms. Warren can tame the beast. Not Sanders, Biden nor the rest of democratic presidential aspirants. Republicans let the beast and Donald loose.
4
@Uly I guess if she can get Harvard to pay her something like $350,00 for teaching one class she could do just about anything. Just another rich hypocrite that knows what is best for the rest of us. To me she is a socialist just like any socialist like those in Venezuela, making sure that they themselves are well taken care of.
1
Here’s an idea. Change the progressive tax as follows.
(Senator Warren, Dr. Krugman: is this feasible with perhaps some tweaks?) It would certainly lower rates for the middle class.
$0 to $25,000 = 0% tax
$25,001 to $35,000 = 10% tax
$35,001 to $45,000 = 17% tax
$45,001 to $55,000 = 20% tax
$55,001 to $75,000 = 23% tax
$75,001 to $100,000 = 25% tax
$100,001 to $150,000 = 27% tax
$150,001 to $200,000 = 30% tax
$200,001 to $500,000 = 32% tax
$500,001 to $1,000,000 = 35% tax
$1,000,001 to $5,000,000 = 35% tax; 45% on income above $1,000,001
$5,000,001 and up = 35% tax; 55% on income above $5,000,001
Capital gains: leave it as is, but raise it to 35% for income realized from capital gains over $5,000,001.
Not as drastic as AOC’s proposal and not punitive—it seems fair to me.
3
@BlueMountainMan
Do you include a standard deduction? Any other deductions?
1
@Daphne
Same as now, with perhaps some modest tweaks. I leave it to the economists to hash out, but this seems to me to be a more fair structure that would lower taxes for everyone earning less than $200,000.00/year, so they’d all have more to spend and invest—that would give the economy a sustainable boost. Just my 2¢.
1
@Daphne
Same as now, with perhaps some modest tweaks.
For me, the dream team is Bernie as president and Warren as either vice president or secretary of the treasury. Why? They both draw large crowds. She knows the legal side of the economic issues; he has a cohesive model and a long history in government. He has the executive experience as a two-term mayor that she lacks. A gut level understanding of the economic plight of ordinary American voters is a defining characteristic they share.
Bernie is a firebrand, as she can also be, but he is in a better position to defeat Trump than anyone, even Biden (Crime bill, anti-busing, Anita Hill will be albatrosses), because he will peal away Trump's wavering supporters. For example, he won all 55 precincts in West Virginia. For other red states and mid-west states, he won Alaska, Michigan, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. See a trend? All states Trump carried. Many of their voters may have preferred Bernie to Trump but didn't have that choice. Give it to them and see how it turns out.
Bernie is also an historic candidate because he is Jewish; we have never had a Jewish president. He would be a transformative president, not beholden to the billionaire class. Furthermore, people - ordinary Americans - believe him, trust him, and make him the best liked politician in the U.S. The "socialist" branding will not make a dent. The only people who care about that are Trump supporters and the .01%. Oh, yeah, and the DNC and NYT.
11
In MA, many of her strongest supporters do not want her to President
She cannot win, is not well liked, too academic, with almost zero leadership skills.
She cannot unite the country.
Finally, many believe she gamed her success by claiming to be a minority which would be exploited by the republicans
9
@Neil I thought similar things until I really listened to her rational plans. It’s too bad everything has to be about personality instead of competency. Look what we have now.
13
If those Trump supporters that claim they voted for Trump because he supports the working class would just get past the Pocahontas ridiculousness, and listen honestly to what Warren is saying and look at what she has actually done, they would probably support her.
Sadly, that probably won't happen so I hope Democrats will narrow the field down to her or at least play nice with each other.
9
She will fail at the debates.
Too shrill
But she will make a great
Secretary of the Treasury when Amy Klobuchar is president and Kala is VP
3
@nurseJacki: She is not shrill. She's actually pretty funny. No, on Klobacher; we don't need another bully in the white house.
@nurseJacki
There’s the “shrill” word again.
Leonhardt writes from a script. No connection to reality. A Warren Presidency would be a real disaster. Her proposals are antithetical to American values.
6
What values would those be?
1
She has very big socialist anti-free market ideas. Capitalism needs her as much we need another spin off from The Walking Dead.
4
David and the far left Progressives view of providing opportunity for more Americans centers around the redistribution of wealth, erecting barriers to success through taxes and increasing the influence and power of government regulators and central control of the economy.
It's not about competition, it's not about rewarding hardwork and success. It's about making the trees in the forest equal height by cutting them all off at 10'
5
What is her immigration proposal? Her policies can work only with closed borders since I do not think that US taxpayers will be willing to subsidize the whole world. She has been totally silent on immigration. Every socialist country has tight border policies.
5
@DL Maybe with a little luck we can become a socialistic country and then have tight borders. Whose fault will it be then when things do not work out here?
2
As a card-carrying member of the Anyone But Trump party, I've been concerned about Warren's electability. This piece and others by Krugman have gotten me to pay attention to the substance of what the candidates have to say, and on those grounds Warren is looking increasingly appealing.
Plea to Dem's regardless of who wins the nomination: when forming a circular firing squad (we do that like lemings), remember to face your weapons outward (at Trump, McConnell, etc), not inwards.
In the meantime, let the best ideas play themselves out.
27
"But a clear majority favors a wealth tax. A clear majority favors universal child care. A clear majority favors aggressive government action to check corporate power and create decent-paying jobs."
• 58% of Americans support a single payer health insurance system. The number climbs when people are told more about the way it would work.
• 90% of gun owners support some sort of background checks for purchasing a gun.
• 83% of people would have a “favorable” reaction to their representative in Congress taking “a strong stand in support of policies to protect and strengthen national parks."
• 70% strongly support protecting public lands like monuments and wildlife refuge areas.
• 72% of people support stronger controls on pollution.
• 66% support the expansion of wind, solar, and renewable energy development.
• 65% of voters back increased taxes for Americans making more than $250,000 a year.
• 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes.
• 65% of people support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
Gilens and Page present data (http://tinyurl.com/hlov4ou) that show that average Americans, even when represented by majoritarian interest groups, have negligible influence in shaping public policy. Economic elites and their business-oriented interest groups call the shots.
We no longer live in a democracy. When Citizens United came down, I saw the end of our grand experiment coming. I didn't think it would come in my lifetime.
62
@pmbrig A clear majority supports handouts until they have to be part of paying them. Remember all the polls said that Hillary would win. I enjoy rehearing the political and media commentators that Trump would NEVER win. So much for polls.
3
I love Warren and out of all the potential nominees like her ideas the best. I am, however, scared that she will struggle in a general election, as anyone with eyes could see the sexism endemic in our culture, and this 2020 election is a must win election. Will have to see how she handles herself when the primary really gets going.
14
Bless you, Mr. Leonhardt. Warren is not only a serious candidate with big ideas and plans for bringing them to fruition and the fight and persistence to get it done, but she is a genuine, caring person with the common life experience we need after this gold-plated Daddy's boy. She is already in my top two. Thanks for giving her the attention she deserves.
118
I disagree with the author about giving labor more bargaining power as opposed to Warren's suggestion of putting labor on corporate boards. The author wants to improve American life overall but labor's bargaining power is used to improve the conditions of a narrow slice of the workforce at the expense of everybody else.
I don't agree so much with the "wealth tax" because I think it will affect economic behavior and encourage tax doges. I would move towards treating earned and unearned income at the same rate with some relief for assets held longer than 5 years (to compensate for inflation).
But I think the real progress will come when the "pay-go" system is revised to take into account the beneficial effects of social legislation like subsidies for electric vehicles. For instance, don't electric vehicle subsidies pay for themselves in terms of reduction in lung diseases and cancer?
Should the US have been forced to raise new taxes to pay for anti-smoking ads when the US took the global lead in reducing tobacco use? After all, they were losing all that revenue from taxes on cigarettes. Or was that revenue replaced by workers who were not taking medical deductions on their tax return for lung cancer expenses?
2
"She has big ideas for fixing the American economy."
She has big ideas that she thinks will fix the economy. But she's a lawyer whose only experience is spending other peoples money. Given that no single politician or businessman has ever fixed anything related to the national economy I'm certainly not going hold my breath.
2
It's pretty absurd to say that only middle class people pay property tax. Wealthy people often hold a significant percentage of their "wealth" in real estate, which is already taxed at the local level.
Is the wealth tax exclusively applied to investments? On which day of the year are they valued? Whatever day that is, you can guarantee that the wealthiest investors will sell massive volumes of stock at a loss to overseas trading companies set up specifically for this purchase. They will then buy them back the two weeks later.
How is it that Democrats like "smart" Elizabeth Warren don't realize that government will never be quick enough to win against big money? She is not thinking outside the box or inventing new ideas, she is just recycling old ones. And it's pretty sad that David doesn't realize it.
2
@Paul
I disagree. Politicians, particularly Republicans, will soon need to start being concerned about re-election. Because we are entering a new world now; the old one is fading. We have a new generation coming into congress and of course into voting age in general. Demands will rise for real democracy, for control of capitalism, for control of the horrid wealth disparity in America, for the fact that 80% of workers live paycheck to paycheck and that unregulated capitalism and the lack of unions is a cause of misery for millions and millions. Many European and scandinavian countries rate themselves higher on happiness measurements than in America. All of this is becoming visible now due to many in the non-mainstream media. Where the truth can be found.
4
It's amazing how narrow and jaded Leonhadt's prism of Warren is. I would argue she continues to have no meaningful understanding of the economy. Breaking up big businesses is a prescription for those hearkening back to the old days when economics was local or national. Today, everything is global and taking such a backward, myopic view would destroy Amrrica's most important 21st Century businesses. Regulate them better instead. Her views are every bit as out of touch as Trump's.
A wealth tax is not only unworkable, but would drive every wealthy person from maintaining US residency. The wealthy are also global and can choose where they live, so that idea is a populist fantasy. Modifying the tax code by eliminating 1031s and their like, carried interest, accelerated depreciation, and capital gains (treat them as ordinary income) would be far better.
She is right on universal healthcare, kindergarten, paid leave, but those are hardly new ideas and Clinton & Obama simply couldn't get them passed.
Her only important new issue is figuring out how workers can share a larger portion of corporate income - the most important issue at present and one with no great ideas yet.
3
i do not think that Elisabeth Warren would accomplish much by breaking up Apple or Google. But she might have better luck supporting a law that every taxpayer, company or individual, pay a fair share of tax. If loopholes operate to decrease the tax below a fair amount, the loopholes should be denied. . Thus, corporations with earnings above a certain threshold should pay 15% federal tax based on their adjusted gross income, and individuals above a certain threshold should all pay 35% federal tax based on their adjusted gross income, without counting any deductions, exemptions or credits.
There is no question in my mind that Elizabeth Warren would be the best candidate to help middle class families like mine and she would definitely have my vote. However, she will never be president because:
1. She is not what many would see as "Presidential" (by that I mean good looking and male - you know...movie star type)
2. Corporations and Big Banks will never let her win
3. Most Americans will not understand what she can do for them (middle class in particular).
My advice to her would be to talk more about how she would conduct foreign policy. That is the one area I have not heard enough about from her.
If she is not the democratic parties nominee I would urge the next President to give her a high level position that can make real change on behalf of all Americans!
11
@Christian Democrat: Regarding #1, you do realize Trump is not exactly easy on the eyes, yes?
And Warren has my vote.
15
@Anne
I cringe every time I see his face on the news but he was (is) a reality TV star. Both he and Kelly Anne make me want to use eyewash.
2
"Capitalism" needs people to stop using the word unless they define it--and explain how it applies to the USA--which as ALWAYS been a mixed economy--some private some public enterprise--quite a bit of public--for that matter.
"Not USSRism" won't do.
Turning Elizabeth Warren loose on the US economy would lead to disaster.
I am neither rich nor wealthy and, yes, I am jealous of how much money US billionaires have. However, what Elizabeth Warren and her ilk are proposing is pure Communism: From each according to his (or her) ability, to each according to his (or her) need.
While income tax is authorized by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, nowhere does the Constitution nor any of its Amendments authorize government confiscation of accumulated wealth.
Besides, not only will those affected fight such confiscation, they will also find ways to move their wealth offshore to places where such tax policies are not in place.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
The same concerns apply to the corporate sector, which would surely suffer if Warren were elected President.
She has such limited personal and political appeal that she is unlikely to gain the nomination and would, made if the Democratic candidate, virtually guarantee Trump's victory.
Why is the Democratic National Committee so unable to develop and put forward a platform (and a candidate) that will appeal to a large majority of US voters?
8
@Mal T: " am neither rich nor wealthy and, yes, I am jealous of how much money US billionaires have. However, what Elizabeth Warren and her ilk are proposing is pure Communism"
o, she is not proposing pure Communism. She's proposing not allowing wealth inequality to continue to grow to even more unsustainable levels. And I'm not rich. And I'm not jealous of rich people.
17
Do some research into basic political theory before you let your fingers fly. My God.
17
@Mal T
"From each according to his (or her) ability, to each according to his (or her) need."
So if you are opposed to a wealth tax, are you saying that Trump (who was getting $200,000/year from his father at age 3) became wealthy because of his ability?
2
Is 3.8% unemployment not good enough? Is wage growth finally picking up not good enough? Her proposals reek of one thing, jealousy. Please don't be jealous of rich people, most of them live with with more anxiety and depression than the rest of us anyway. Enjoy what you have and be grateful. The system is working just fine.
7
@Randy
I think the economy is doing really well and i don't know who these people are that aren't getting jobs. When i see sport and entertainment venues empty, then i will believe people are doing poorly financially.
1
"To other 2020 candidates, I’d say: Be ambitious. Tell the country how you would end the new Gilded Age and improve people’s lives. Presidential campaigns are the time for big ideas."
Yes! Excellent article Mr. Leonhardt.
18
She will have my vote in the primary, and hopefully as a candidate. The upcoming election will come down to one thing - whether the progressive candidate can effectively communicate to middle America that the divisive social issues are specifically intended to do just that - divide us - so that capital can continue to hold power to direct the nation's wealth ever upward. I wish I were more sanguine, but it will once again come down to emotion versus reason. Here lately, the electorate hasn't engaged in a lot of reasoning. But maybe we'll surprise ourselves.
24
Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders contend that billionaires and their children have WAY more than enough, that the government should ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity and lives in a safe, healthy, and sane world, and that we should spend less on the military and more to ensure the well-being of citizens. If that makes them socialists, then Eisenhower was a socialist.
265
With a 93% marginal tax rate!!
19
@WFGersen
Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders contend that the government should hold your hand since you aren't able to make decisions for yourself. Take care of yourself and leave the rest of us alone.
1
@Driven - Well, I would rather have a government elected by the people make decisions than corporations and Billionaires.
42
I really do not understand why Warren is not the front-runner. In the wake of the 2016 election she seemed naturally positioned to bring the Hillary and Bernie factions together and move the party forward with her populist economic agenda to defeat Trump and the corporatists that have fleeced the middle class and made the poor and the rich more so.
But that’s not happening and I’m not sure why. Both Bernie and Hillary diehards continue to dismiss any criticism of their respective candidates while raking Warren over the coals for the slightest misstep. The new candidates all parrot one another in parading their progressive bona fides in the form of unrealistic proposals regarding health care, climate change and immigration while not addressing the nuts and bolts of economic policy that we have to solve first if we’re going to effectively tackle those other things. More so than any other politician I know of, Warren is both a pragmatist in that she’s engaging with reality as it is and not how she wants it to be, and an idealist in that she actually wants to solve these problems and not shrug them off because they don’t affect her biggest donors. I know she’s not the slickest campaigner, but neither were Hillary and Bernie; let’s at least show her the same amount of respect for her record of service and consider her proposals with the seriousness they deserve.
279
@James Jacobs I share your frustration about Elizabeth Warren. I agree that she is the candidate who best understands the economy and her policy priorities are firmly rooted in her understanding. But I have an MBA, solid knowledge of economics, and am a dedicated reader of The Economist. I'm not typical of how voters evaluate our candidates.
I would bet my boots on Warren's nomination except for the burden of misogyny that she carries. I was totally committed to Hillary's presidential campaigns in both 2008 and 2016, so I'm not in that crowd, but I WANT DEMOCRATS TO WIN IN 2020. Therefore, Warren is not our best bet. Not only does she share Hillary's policy wonkyness, she is a woman with a hard edge...much harder than Hillary's.
We won't have a perfect candidate in 2020 because there are no perfect people in this world. But what will the best trade-off be? Not clear to me yet.
13
@Yellow Dog: Hopw does she have a 'hard edge'? She's a bit nerdy, but also funny. I don't see hard edges.
24
@James Jacobs I think some in Bernie's base feel she "sold out" when she didn't endorse Bernie in the 2016 primary. Thus, they're even more loyal to Bernie.
I also think that she claimed American Indian ancestry on paper (her application to be in the Texas bar registration) is a huge strike against her with many Dems. It just seems wrong that she did that. Even if she has family stories of being an American Indian, she more significantly has had the privilege that looking white affords someone.
5
The Democrat's candidates for 2020 should not be merely ambitious, they should go for it like there is no tomorrow.
If, as seems likely, we have a recession starting late this year and deepening into 2020, the caution lights will go on. Hang in there, Democrats, you are surely to win as Trump's promises and failures are starkly revealed? This would be a huge mistake. The country and the world can't take another four years of this mess, so playing it safe, waiting to win, isn't an option.
One reason we have Trump in the White House is Obama mishandled the Great Recession. Yes, he took measures that helped us dig out faster but he didn't get much credit for that with the public. Knowing that most presidents only get big things done in the first two years, his administration switched far too soon to health insurance when the nation was reeling from the Great Recession. A few bankers were punished but, in the main, the public was left holding the bag.
Obama failed to fully understand the public leadership aspect of the presidency. What? A smart guy like that? In an interview, Obama admitted that Michele caught on to the need for public leadership quicker than he did. He was also often reluctant to take part in the rough political battles, holding back his fire.
Trump does almost NOTHING ELSE except try to control the narrative. Even when he loses, bigly, his most in love supporters give him credit for trying. Obama didn't get much credit for saving the world financial system.
5
Thank you for this substantive opinion piece, as well as the excellent podcast interview. Warren quickly stood out for me as the candidate who most inspires me, and I will vote for her in the primary. The reasons include all the things discussed in this piece, and more. I believe she has accurately diagnosed what ails our country, that her vision for what to do—and her ability to communicate that vision—are compelling, and above all, I trust her. She walks the walk with every breath she takes, and she will marshal the forces of government to fight for us with every fiber of her being.
37
Elizabeth Warren is 21st century corporate America's worst nightmare: someone who isn't an anti-capitalist caricature but who rather wants to make capitalism work better for working people and who has a concrete, pragmatic platform for how to make that happen.
And so corporate America is going to do anything it can to build up the Democratic primary candidates who can divide us with the identity politics of "white privilege" and "looking like America," who can delude us with unattainable pie-in-the-sky proposals like "Medicare for All," who can distract us with celebrity and glamour, with empty rhetoric and splashy magazine covers. Anything to marginalize those candidates who could get us off the decades-long neoliberal economic trajectory of this nation, chief among whom right now is Elizabeth Warren.
I'm starting to see her as our American and progressive answer to Margaret Thatcher, a tough, no-nonsense woman with a clear governing vision who gets thing done.
58
"Her plan to put workers on corporate boards may not be as practical as, say, as big federal push to increase workers’ bargaining power."
Have to agree with you there. My suspicion is that workers on a corporate board have a good possibility of being as incorruptable as, say, union leaders. Or the other board members themselves.
I'd love to vote for Warren. She has a coherent vision and the policies to back it up. And those policies absolutely should be dissected and quibbled over, as well as any proposed alternatives. Let me know when any of the other candidates (save for Sanders) have a slate of fleshed out policies to quibble over.
9
Warren is the only candidate that doesn't just push a bold agenda, but also a realistic one. And when she's asked about policy she's one of the only candidate who doesn't repeat the same non-responsive answer over and over again but always gives good argumentation. Maybe not the best politician, but definitely the smartest policy-maker.
329
She will be with us. If she doesn't make the cut for nomination for the presidency, she will be Secretary of the Treasury.
11
When Elizabeth was in her first senate race I meet her at a house party and thanked her for doing it. I doubt that I'll have the opportunity to thank her in person this time. But, "Thank you Senator Warren for doing this". Her voice is much needed.
85
'' To other 2020 candidates, I’d say: Be ambitious. '' - I would say the same and NOT ONE of them comes even close to the fundamental change of society that is required for civilization to continue.
I say that as a Liberal through and through, and want ANY Democrat to win the White House, for there to remain a majority in the House, and for there to be a super majority ( to overtake any filibuster) in the Senate.
Having said that, the NUMBER ONE priority has to be climate change and what we are going to do about it. The Paris Agreement was but of a fraction of what is required, and even if there is going to be a plan beyond that, it is going to take a massive restructuring of society.
AYE, we are going to have to eat less hamburgers and use less plastic (dramatically), as well as oil. We are going to have to downshift the birth rate of not only the country, but the planet. We are going to have to eliminate ALL billionaires.
The question is no longer about freedom and the grotesque image of any one person or family even having such wealth. (let alone multiples thereof) Tax anything beyond that amount @100%. (a 3% wealth tax on such sums is still a gift in relation to poverty and the consumption of finite resources leading to our destruction)
The last decade was the hottest on record (almost every year) and the devastation is in the hundreds of billions. (so far) It is only going to get worse.
Deal with it now or give up any possible future.
Your choice.
11
She's killing it with her ideas. I am of the position now that Bernie's ideas like $15 minimum wage, simply are not foundation-changing or bold enough to affect lasting change the way Warren's are. Bernie is a great symbol, but Warren seems to have all the policy chops, and is bringing all the big ideas to the table. Bernie is pointing out a lot of problems, Warren is providing solutions to the problems that Bernie is pointing out. Inequality is a horrible problem but just calling for a $15 minimum wage is not the solution. Shareholders will make low-wage workers bear the brunt of the downside, and in that regard he is starting to seem--to me-- a bit short on execution. Ideally, they could combine their campaigns into a single ticket, but if I had to pick one, at this point I'd pick Warren.
Also, Obama did a terrible job with the banks. Those were not bold ideas to give Wall Street the ability to pay their bonuses without requiring them to meet any lending requirements. Without Obama's terrible handling of the financial crisis, we probably never get Trump, but then again we probably never get Bernie either. Nonetheless, let's not give Obama too much credit for being bold. In actuality, he is the antithesis of bold. He got pushed around by special interests and did nothing for poor people in this country.
34
@nickgregor,
Really?
You don't think a min. wage earner going from $7.25 to $15.00 isn't a game changer?!
We were told 3yrs ago $15. wouldn't/couldn't happen. That is would ruin our economy and small businesses.
Now $15. is being put into play all over our country.
$15. in someone's pocket is immediate. Every paycheck. Not some promise come tax time once a year. Just imagine what doubling your income would do for you.
Really? Not a game changer?!
Headshake, facepalm, sigh...
3
Elizabeth Warren policies will break American economy. Noway i'll vote for her.
2
Will you articulate *why* they will break the economy, or does simply asserting that make it so?
7
Good work...this is a very important analysis.
The job of politicians is to solve problems.
Would everyone please email a copy to the lanky ladies
at FOX, who pretend to report the news.
Thank you.
David Andrew Henry\ancient economist
5
Variations of the same old stuff. Not bold at all. The Democratic candidate with bold ideas is Andrew Yang. Please write that article and don't choose between Coke & Pepsi.
3
Capitalism needs a slap in the face, handcuffs, and more than a few years behind bars.
11
She has zero chance of becoming president. Let’s stop talking about her.
2
I also am pretty sure that she won't win. She somehow reminds people of Hilary Clinton, despite being miles away in politics. However, we shouldn't let the rather mindless horse race talk drive out serious discussion of the direction that we want this country to go. We should be challenging the other candidates to address Warren's ideas, not pushing them aside because we don't like the packaging.
1
Obama really could not fundamentally change the way capitalism works in America for the same reason you cannot remodel a house at the same time it is burning to the ground.
2
Why separate her ideas from her candidacy?
Yes, she's the idea candidate, but she's also a super-well prepared candidate for the presidency. I haven't yet heard her deflect a question as, say, Beto O'Rourke has.
Just because she's a smart woman doesn't mean she can't win.
540
Hillary Clinton was also an Ivy League super well-prepared, intelligent policy expert but in the final analysis did not inspire voters with a heartfelt message of hope that resonated with us all (despite that overly touted 3 million majority advantage in the popular vote which came in large part from Democratic majority states like California). It is too early to judge if Senator Warren can inspire with sincerity and earn the respect of all voting blocs especially in the states far removed from the coasts. This is yet to be seen.
4
"The future of the republic does not actually depend on the relative sizes of Medicare, Medicaid and the private market. It may, however, depend on whether Americans’ incomes and living standards are consistently rising".
Are trying to con me Mr. Leonhardt, by pushing Medicare 4all out of the window? Your next statement suggests so:
"Her plans are also much more detailed than those of Bernie Sanders (who, to his credit, pushed the party to become bolder)". Did Obama give you all the details of his ACA (which is now reeling under Repub assault) beforehand? But thank you for conceding Sanders "pushed the party to become bolder". Now I will see if Warren and others are anywhere near what Sanders "pushed" for.
2
Bold ideas generate excitement and will bring out Democrat voters. Liberals are by far the majority and if they vote in same percentage as Republicans they will certainly elect a Democrat (Republicans know this too, hence their attempts to block voters).
Middle of the road politics is only played by the Dems to their own historical demise.
So go with the big, bold ideas Democrat’s!
47
She has the education, experience, and firm grasp of macro and micro economic issues to really help this country. Her books "All Your Worth" and "The Two Income Trap" show that she understands and can develop workable solutions for many every day Americans. I hope she can really develop a consistent, strong, and easy to understand campaign message to reach the voters.
She's the front runner for me for primary vote.
346
Breaking up companies using anti-trust is a mistake. Use the tax code to drive companies to break themselves up through progressive corporate taxes.
Anti-trust is fundamentally subjective and follows a court's pace. Any and every breakup will take years to decades and may not come to pass after all the time and expense. When it does, it will have been judges and attorneys deciding much of the fate of what comes next, rather than the business people who know what they are doing.
Using the tax code, none of the issues is subjective; not trust, not monopoly, not monopsony and if so who else; none of that. Just revenue and profits.
Any company able to argue that it should be allowed to grow bigger, can lobby for a break. Otherwise, let the market decide when and how to break up. But make it so that investors suffer when consolidation goes too far.
Unless an international agreement is reached to eliminate tax havens, many of these ideas are not workable. The wealthy will always find some form of chicanery to hide their assets and corporations have more people working on this scheme than in R&D. Countries like Ireland that allow multinational profits to fictitiously parked there should be penalized by their neighbors.
7
I hope that Warren raises the bar for other Democratic candidates to present a coherent vision, and to tie spending ideas to funding ideas. But the media is anxious to reduce everything to a misleading "socialism vs. capitalism" debate, and too many Democrats only want to talk about choosing the "moderate" candidate they fantasize will appeal to their very limited idea of who swing voters are.
The trap of triangulating against a GOP that has no core principles should have been obvious 20 years ago. Presidents Clinton and Obama made a few steps forward (and a few backward), but they made no serious challenge to the GOP / media narrative of capitalist fundamentalism that has deluded this country since Reagan. What Warren and any other serious Democrat still need is a strong narrative. The old GOP tropes that "government is the problem" and that capitalism will save you as long as you leave the details to the powerful, were self-serving, mercenary lies. But they remain among the most successful lies in political history. People have forgotten that democracy means deciding what it is we want capitalism to accomplish and overseeing it. The Democrats need to inspire people to take their Democracy seriously, to discuss specific decisions and their consequences. If they simply pursue an undefined "moderation," or, worse, fall into an identity politics battle with Trump over which side is the root of evil, they are toast.
46
@Martin: I agree with nearly everything you've written, but you write that
"... democracy means deciding what it is we want capitalism to accomplish ..."
thus presuming that we choose capitalism as the solution. Do you expect that a free market will find a solution to our gravest problem, climate change? If so, how has it worked so far? We need as a species to learn how to cooperate, and the lessons of capitalism are how to compete.
5
@George Moody I take your point, but I want to get away from the manipulative ways the terminology is used. I'm not against "free markets" because there's no such thing. Markets, at least in the modern world, are a product of regulation. What people mean by "free markets," markets in which the regulations are bought by highest bidders, should be called "corruption." I don't think we want to eliminate competition or capitalism; but we urgently need to embrace and exercise other values and ideals, otherwise we'll destroy ourselves.
6
By the time the Democrats nominate their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, I expect that the platform they will run on, and their own policies they will advance if elected will incorporate not only Warren’s antitrust ideas and wealth tax, but also the Green New Deal, some form of Medicare for All, a program to reduce student debt, and a 70% marginal income tax rate.
Note that each of these policies is supported by at least a plurality of Americans.
So, in the end, the deciding question is which candidates can beat Trump. That’s all that matters in 2020.
24
@John Graybeard: I do agree that, more than anything, we need to beat Trump or his annointed successor, and in the general election I'll vote without hesitating for whoever has the best chance of doing so (almost certainly the Democat, even if they nominate a pet rock).
I would like the politics of the US to shift decidedly left of where Trump and his lackeys have put them. In the primary, I hope to have a choice of progressive candidates with a variety of the "non-plurality" positions you've so neatly dismissed. I'll vote for one of them, not someone who aims to appeal to the mythical "center" who will (if they exist) vote for more Trump anyway. You see, pessimism works both ways!
4
Elizabeth Warren is the one thinker that can make a difference in our country. First and foremost, I believe she is running because she wants to have things fixed as opposed to wanting to be the ONE who fixes them. If the inequality gap was actually (and significantly) smaller, we would be able to address all the other issues (climate change, immigration, even racial issues) because there wouldn't be such a large portion of the wealthiest fighting to prevent what we all could agree on that we need ( if there were no gas or oil magnates, are people really spending money to push climate change denial? Would conservatives still be using immigration to divide and separate working people?) I agree that she might not be the most electable democrat, but i sure hope she has a lot of input into what the next president tries to accomplish!
179
I like her and I especially like her ideas. I listened to David's interview with Elizabeth Warren on the excellent NYT podcast The Argument and was very impressed with both her biography and her clear policy proposals. It will be hard for her to shake the whole Indian heritage thing, but the spotlight must be yanked away from that issue and onto her ideas. They are truly necessary for the country's future.
117
Tim Nelson - all of us who grew up in Oklahoma thought we were part Native American. And looking at most people’s kith and kin it was a fairly reasonable assumption. Okay, so now DNA testing proves otherwise. Great. That said, EW was expressing what was the so-called reality for all of us until maybe 20 years or so ago. I think she just needs to put it out there just like that and move on.
27
@Tim Nelson
The Indian heritage thing is not worth discussing further. More than enough has been said, and it was never a big deal.
28
"But whatever my — or your — specific objections, Warren is identifying the right problems and offering a coherent vision for a post-Obama Democratic agenda."
Thank you for pointing all this out, David Leonhardt. Elizabeth Warren is corporations' worst nightmare, which definitely tells us something.
I've long thought she was extremely smart and articulate. She has the skill every good professor should have, which is to translate the complex into the readily understandable, the gross outlines of complexity that allows listeners (or students) get the concept before fleshing out the details.
She's also personable, extremely quick-wittted, and always ready with a good analogy that helps the memory of the complex concepts.
When Warren says, "the system is rigged against the little guy," she's right. Donald Trump said the same thing, but never backed it up with policy. And then of course, as president, he never backed it up, period.
I love Warren. Any candidate big corporations and scammers of all kinds love to hate is my kind of president.
818
thank you for your comment. I would have written it exactly the same. I am planning to work for her campaign. I did work from California for her Mass Senate campaign first time.
46
Regardless of whether or not she ends up as the nominee, she needs a prominent position to address these issues. Perhaps Secretary of Commerce?
43
@ChristineMcM "Donald Trump said the same thing...", but Warren (& Sanders) blame powerful, wealthy "millionaires and billionaires" for the mess we are in, while Trump blames powerless illegal immigrants. But who did Trump hire to work at his resorts... illegal immigrants.
Yes, both Warren and Trump say the system is rigged, but Warren has a coherent story as to who is doing the rigging, while Trump is a hypocrite who trying to deflect blame from his own illegal hiring actions. Big, fundamental, difference.
74
It is true, that Democrats have succumbed to the lure of free-wheeling capitalism over the past decades; the effects are quite obvious - the hollowing out of the middle class, and the implicit, if not even explicit, acceptance of the capitals creed, that "greed is good".
However, fiddling around with the tax code is not going to solve that problem. There needs to be a radical shift in the US consciousness about the proper role of government and the naturally exploitative nature of capitalism.
A much more acceptable blend of the benefits of market economy and the needs to ensure an equitable division of the "spoils" through government is the "social market economy" model of most European societies. This shift is unlikely to happen in the US because of the overarching influence of profit-motivated media, which continues to brainwash Americans to vote against their own self-interest.
2
I think Elizabeth Warren is one of the better candidates but she is not the candidate for these times. After 30 years of procrastination climate change is now an emergency situation. The emergency is that unless global emission reductions begin with the next couple of years the chances of staying under 2C will be all but gone (I don't believe staying under 1.5C is still feasible but that is really what is needed). What is called catastrophic climate change will eventually be reached and beyond that civilization itself could be in peril. That's why thousands of kids are out in the streets today trying to get that message through to adults. To deal with this emergency Bernie Sanders would be a much better candidate than Warren. He has put a major emphasis on fighting climate change. But there is even a better candidate than Sanders. That candidate is Jay Inslee. His entire campaign is focused on climate change. What makes Inslee the best candidate is not only his years of experience of working in the trenches on climate change as governor of Washington State but his promise to make climate change his top priority issue if elected as president. To have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change the top priority issue must be climate change and Jay Inslee gets that.
8
@Bob -- Bob, I'd like to agree with you, but saying climate change is #1 is not enough.
Effective dealing with it requires zeroing in on specific actions that can do most to minimize climate change soonest.
From Inslee I have not seen that. Just the opposite : he sounds much like the "Green New Deal" -- which hijacks public concern about climate to try to fix everything else.
That is nails in the coffin of human civilization on Earth.
4
@Bob
I would agree with you that climate change is the number one issue of our times. But it brings with it some issues that Dems aren't going to want to deal with, the cognitive dissonance is unmanageable for them. Like, say, immigration. As far as economically distressed voters go, it's not going to pay their health care or raise their wages or help them pay their rent. Sure, some sort of green new deal is a partial solution, but it's a long way into the future. Democratic candidates are going to need to have a policy on climate change, but they're going to have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm not convinced that Inslee can do this.
3
@Dick Purcell
Inslee has not supplied details yet. He has promised to release the details of his "Climate Mission" in a few weeks so I would hold off making any judgements yet. I am impressed by his campaign focused on climate change and his statements about building on what states and cities have been doing which is certainly a lot in many cases. I don't think he will be focused on welfare state programs as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in putting justice at the center of the Green New Deal to "try to fix everything" but certainly Inslee recognizes poorer people will tend to be the most affected by climate change and many people will need to transition from fossil jobs to other types of work. Making climate change the top priority should generate a large number of new jobs related to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate adaptation.
2
What previous posters fail to recognize is that the United States no longer functions under capitalism. We function under hyper- capitalism. The two are not the same. Further, a prolonged period of hyper-capitalism is certain to be followed by end-stage capitalism. And then collapse. Anyone who has a stake in preserving the system for their own or their heirs benefit must realize that by leaving the system untouched, they are ensuring their own ultimate undoing.
27
I like Elizabeth Warren's ideas to address the gross economic inequality in our country as articulated in the article. However, I am perplexed by her unwillingness to articulate how and if she would address universal healthcare. Equal access to quality healthcare is the most important and complex issue facing our society. I need to know her approach before I can decide who I will support.
1
Superb column, David -- except for one fatal thing.
As you suggest, in understanding our economy and zeroing in on best specific actions to fix it, Warren towers above the other candidates.
The only problem is that she is focused on the wrong problem.
We are approaching the point of no return in igniting forces of climate change that will continue on their own, devastating conditions of life on Earth for our civilization and species. Focusing on fixing our economy now is like rearranging deck chairs on our ship of human life, while it has a gaping and growing hole in the hull.
We need the kind of expertise that Warren exemplifies -- but to minimize the climate change hole in the hull. Her current mis-focus on economics diverts us to deck chairs, increasing the pace at which the ship of human civilization will sink.
7
David. Other countries have tried this and have stopped doing a wealth tax. I would like to understand what caused them to change course. Also, I would like to understand the valuation issues associated with such a tax. Publicly traded stock is one thing. Other assets are far more difficult to value. It would be a good time to own a valuation firm. Finally, I would like to understand the interplay with charitable giving. I would guess a great amount of wealth would flow into charitable foundations which would decrease tax revenues. My gut tells me that repealing step up basis at death would yield a similar amount of revenue. You could treat assets over a certain amount as sold at death. This would raise a lot of money. This could be combined with limiting the estate tax deduction for charities at death. She is onto a big issue, however. Think of Buffet. To his great credit, he starts out with little and turns it into 100 billion, or so. He pays no income tax on the appreciation, and no estate tax because he will give his assets away to charities at death. Great tax planning! But, if the richest among us pay little, it can lead to a host of problems.
3
@Robert"Other assets are far more difficult to value". No, they are not. I was a business valuation expert for 25 years. Each industry has guidelines that address the specific parameters that are pertinent to valuing companies in that industry. We have been using them for decades. And a professional valuator can produce appraisals that take into consideration the peculiarities of any individual company. I would volunteer to train the next batch of appraisers, and so would most of my colleagues. And the use of current apps would make the tax much faster and easier than what we had to use 25 years ago.
1
@George - The valuation expert for the IRS will go high. My valuation expert will go low. Who's right?
See you in court, and we all know how long that can take.
1
Elizabeth Warren has my vote. She knows what she's talking about and knows what to do to solve the problem of corruption that is destroying our democracy.
Warren explains how the influence of money is at the root of our evils. People want our democracy back and to do that we need to control the over-sized influence of money on our politics and policies.
When asked, Warren said that if she could have anybody for vice president living or not, who would she want? She said Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt was a republican who took on the wealthy elite and broke up the trusts. This is not a partisan issue, this is a right and wrong issue, a fairness issue, a democracy or plutocracy issue.
Warren/Roosevelt in 2020!
509
"How can corporate America again help create a prosperous, growing middle class, as it did from the 1940s through the 1970s?"
Perhaps we can coax the rest of the planet to engage in a deadly world war that leaves the U.S. unscathed and the rest of the combatant nations largely in ruins. The middle class enjoyed an unearned prosperity for about three decades that was not permanent, even if we imagined it to be otherwise during our day in the sun. Since the 1970s and 1980s, we've frittered away any long-term competitive advantages we enjoyed to countries like China that steal our technologies and create artificial barriers against our products. The best moves the U.S. could take right now are to acknowledge that we are in relative decline and then engage in a series of strategic withdrawals so that our fall as a global power is gradual and not cataclysmic.
4
Capitalism needs someone who wants to implement ideas antithetical to capitalism? Capitalism needs state control over massive corporations? It needs taxes to reduce the incentives to plow time and money into risky ventures?
2
@Tom: To answer your questions, yes, yes, and yes!
1
The wealth tax is one of the worst policy ideas to come from an American politician. First off, Wealth taxes were once fairly popular in Europe before being all but completely abandoned. In 1990 there were 12 European nations with wealth taxes. Now there are 3. The wealth tax is expensive to enforce. The taxes have failed in other countries to meet revenue forecasts. The taxes cause people and businesses to leave countries. Elizabeth Warren is no great policy intellectual. Her ideas have been tried before and failed.
8
@John: So you're okay with wealth inequality? SIncere question. And, if the answer is no, what do you propose to address it?
12
@Anne I do not favor the current level of inequality but inequality in and of itself is necessary. No modern successful nation has income or wealth equality. I would favor a higher tax on income for the wealthy as I did not believe the last tax cuts were needed. A better safety net is far more important than wealth inequality.
3
@John: A degree of wealth inequality is understandable. They hyper-inequity is problematic and unsustainable.
12
Mr. Leonhardt here claims, as a matter of course, that reducing the Reagan era deficits helped "spark the strongest economic boom in decades".
But is there a positive relationship between deficit reduction and economic growth, middle-class well-being and reduced poverty?
That Mr. Leonardt takes "yes" to be axiomatically true tells us a lot about the state of American punditry, but nothing about economics. Or recent history.
2
The unequal distribution isn't an accident. The question is can you prioritize great equality in the economy and still have economic growth?
1
@Daniel A. Greenbaum The most equal nations in the world are also the poorest. That is certainly not a coincidence.
3
@John Absolutely backwards. The most UNequal nations, such as Namibia, Botswana, Honduras are the poorest. AMong the most equal nations are Norway and Sweden--by far not the poorest.
7
I like Elizabeth Warren and her ideas, but I crossed her off my list when she proposed government manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. That was a step over the line for me. I notice you didn't include that in your list of her ideas. I will vote in the Democratic primary for a candidate with proposals similar to Warren's minus the involvement of government in manufacturing.
4
@P. J. Brown: If it saves tons of money for consumers why not? If it makes meds affordable for all, why not?
18
@Anne Making it illegal for Medicare to bargain with drug manufacturers has kept the free market from working properly. Allowing Medicare to bargain for lower prices on drugs will likely solve the problem without government intervention. Government subsidies, regulations and even limited price fixing is fair play. Government control of the means of production is not.
3
@P. J. Brown
Do you agree with government nvolvement in, say, weapons manufactuing? Infrastructure? It's not like pharmaceuticals would be the first thing the government was involved in producing.
9
Thanks for the in-depth interview with Sen. Warren on The Argument podcast. I think she strives for that balance between the need for ambitious change with what is possible. As a candidate, she will have to simplify her message and repeat, repeat, repeat. So it was good to hear her main ideas explored in some detail.
202
Trump drove me to leave the Republican party and become an independent. The far left policies that Warren et al. advance won't bring me to the fold. Instead, I'll simply not vote for president. Why take half a loaf when you could get the whole loaf if you nominate a different candidate? Warren's policy to break up companies based on an arbitrary revenue figure ($25b) and vague definitions of platform vs. product isn't workable. It also reverses decades of antitrust policy based on the notion that "big is bad." I don't understand the shibboleth that small sellers necessarily are better than larger sellers; if the large seller's product is equal (or better) in quality and less expensive, we're not helping consumers under her approach. Her wealth tax is equally unworkable--that is why nearly all OECD members that had such a tax abandoned it. I understand that the far left doesn't care what I think and doesn't care if I vote for president. It seems like voter apathy led to the current situation, though.
7
@James Of course I have no way of knowing whether you've been misled about Warren's proposals, or whether you are trying to mislead others about them. If the former, I recommend you listen to David Leonhardt's recent interview (and several others easily findable). There's nothing vague or arbitrary, nothing even "far left" by the standards that served us for our first 200 years.
16
As usual. Mr. Leonhardt has written a very good column. But the only issue in 2020 is getting Trump out of office. He has NO ideas even worth mentioning. And his ideas that aren't worth mentioning are divisive and hateful and stupid and against the well-being of our country. We don't have the luxury of wanting a Democratic nominee full of brilliant ideas. We need a nominee who will win.
10
David Leonhardt, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Don’t forget John Hickenlooper!
What a great 2020 ticket.
7
She absolutely has my primary vote. She's experienced, she's smart, and she has integrity. She actually cares about the 'little guy.'
587
@Anne Do you think she can beat D T? I love Elizabeth Warren and would vote for her but I am determined to try to pick a candidate who can unseat Trump.
7
@Anne. She has mine too. Strongest and hardest working candidate...
16
@CS: Well, I'm hoping Trump is in prison by the next election. But if he's not, yes I think she can beat him. If she debated him, people would realize how smart and funny she actually is.
49
Three percent unemployment with substantial wage increases. Best to trash that for some lefty looney idea of utopia, that's for sure.
6
@leaningleft: Trump is giving us hatred and global instability and the shredding of our constitution.
16
@leaningleft
3% of $10 per hour is $0.30. Right wing utopia. And you better like it.
10
@leaningleft
Substantial wage increase? Why is inequality so high then?
8