US continues to go backward...

[GratefulPoke]

I had to add the word state. Because I would consider an argument that we're actually closer to socialism than capitalism right now. Talk about centrally planned. What's more centrally planned than a government picking winners and losers of entire industries based on who donates the most?

It is some sort of regressive socialism in its current form.

 

[Stillwater Townie]

I disagree with this assessment. Supply side economics sold the working class down the river and the damage was not apparent until later on. Neither neoliberal approach has worked or is working, and many economic ailments are slow developing so the damage may not be apparent at all early on. But the middle class is being gutted, the working class is struggling and growing in number and percentage. If AI is even half as disruptive as it is surmised to be, this will be catastrophic to both groups.

Both systems grow income inequality astronomically and that plus the debt are the two biggest economic challenges we face today.

When 50-60% of the population struggles or is unable to make ends meet, that is an untenable situation. And it is no wonder why NYC just nominated a democratic socialist to be mayor in light of this. If these economic trends hold, Mamdani will be the first of many to come and there will be a large socialist movement in the US.

I think a great socialist movement in the U. S. will require the coming of the Second Great Depression in which the economy is so bad that not enough tax revenue comes in to pay interest on government issued bonds. That could be caused by too many people being laid off from the acceptance of AI systems and robots. Perhaps putting a federal tax on those worker robbing advances could help to prevent or delay it.

 

[RxCowboy]

No, this started ~1970 when two things happened:
1) We went off the Bretton-Woods monetary system.
2) Labor got weakened and membership as a result started to fall.

The Reagan years were the 2nd worst decade for the wage growth discrepancy in the last 35 years:
View attachment 12474

Oh, we started in 1970, but it's Reagan's fault... got it.

10% unemployment in 1980 when Reagan took office.
Recession in 1980 when Reagan took office.
13% inflation in 1980 when Reagan took office

Inflation 4.1% in 1988 when Reagan left office
Unemployment 5.5% in 1988 when Reagan left office
71 consecutive months of economic growth
(from November 1982 to January 1989)

This expansion began after the deep recession of 1981–1982 and continued uninterrupted through the end of Reagan’s presidency. At the time, it was the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Oh, we started in 1970, but it's Reagan's fault... got it.

10% unemployment in 1980 when Reagan took office.
Recession in 1980 when Reagan took office.
13% inflation in 1980 when Reagan took office

Inflation 4.1% in 1988 when Reagan left office
Unemployment 5.5% in 1988 when Reagan left office
71 consecutive months of economic growth
(from November 1982 to January 1989)

This expansion began after the deep recession of 1981–1982 and continued uninterrupted through the end of Reagan’s presidency. At the time, it was the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.

Yes, you know how someone starts something and someone after that makes it much worse?

Also, wasn't the argument you were making is that Reagan implemented supply side economics and Clinton onward were Keynesians and only the bad stuff we associate today's economy with is from Keynesians? The problem with this hypothesis is that Reagan was the worst president in history on deficit spending at the time and the wealth discrepancy grew at astronomical rates under his presidency. Your statistics are all well and good, but despite those inflation and unemployment rates, the bottom 5th actually had wage contraction. Not only does this undercut your argument, but it supports my point.

A lot of people were left behind and that percentage has only grown since then.

 

[milehighpoke]

Thank you for proving a great example of how people argue against cutting anything. There are ALOT of programs that are under 1% of the total budget so people that don’t really care about continued excessive spending simply put their head in the sand, kick the can down the road and ignore it.

Ok, you want to take away Sesame Street. I'm not cool with the ICE budget going from ~$9 billion to ~$130 billion with this new bill. Which one do you think would make more of a difference if it were cut?

But trump just got his private army, so I guess that's neat.

 

[JTOSU]

Ok, you want to take away Sesame Street. I'm not cool with the ICE budget going from ~$9 billion to ~$130 billion with this new bill. Which one do you think would make more of a difference if it were cut?

But trump just got his private army, so I guess that's neat.

Do I want to take away Sesame Street? No.
Do I want the government to pay for it? No

As for ICE budget…fair question. I don’t know if I have read about why there is an increase, so I am not prepared to give a strong opinion. Do I think we need ICE? Yes, but I can’t say why $130B (if that is correct amount) is necessary.

I do wonder how much ICE could save if some states/jurisdictions would eliminate that ban compliance with ICE detainers.

 

[CowboyJD]

It is some sort of regressive socialism in its current form.

That's what oligarchies do.

Socialize government to the benefit of the few members of the power-brokers.

Privatize the successes of the oligarchs in control, socialize their failures/losses.

 

[JTOSU]

Oh, we started in 1970, but it's Reagan's fault... got it.

10% unemployment in 1980 when Reagan took office.
Recession in 1980 when Reagan took office.
13% inflation in 1980 when Reagan took office

Inflation 4.1% in 1988 when Reagan left office
Unemployment 5.5% in 1988 when Reagan left office
71 consecutive months of economic growth
(from November 1982 to January 1989)

This expansion began after the deep recession of 1981–1982 and continued uninterrupted through the end of Reagan’s presidency. At the time, it was the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.

Besides inheriting high inflation and unemployment, he also experienced huge headwinds with the cost of money.

Furthermore, he reduced discretionary spending (excluding defense). His defense spending, with his large military buildup, contributed strongly to ending Cold War.

The biggest thing is that it was one of the last times we have seen a President from one party work so well with a Congressional leader from another party (Tip O’Neill). Reagan was certainly great, but the bipartisan work (GOP and Dems) is what made the economy turn-around.