APP - 'How This All Happened'

midcan5

Member
How did America get to today? Time does that as it keeps moving, but consider how unified America was during WWII and after for many years. The following editorial does a good job of explaining some whys, later I want to add some references.

"If you fell asleep in 1945 and woke up in 2018 you would not recognize the world around you. The amount of growth that took place during that period is virtually unprecedented. "

https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/how-this-all-happened/


"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
Hello midcan5,

Nice piece. Thanks for posting it.

From the OP link: "Between 1993 and 2012, the top 1 percent saw their incomes grow 86.1 percent, while the bottom 99 percent saw just 6.6 percent growth."

Yes, the NEW economy.

That was the one where wealth inequality exploded.

"The economy works better for some people than others. Success isn’t as meritocratic as it used to be and, when success is granted, is rewarded with higher gains than in previous eras."

Yeah. It works great for Wall Street, not so great for Main Street.

"You can scoff at linking the rise of Trump to income inequality alone. And you should. These things are always layers of complexity deep. But it’s a key part of what drives people to think, “I don’t live in the world I expected. That pisses me off. So screw this. And screw you! I’m going to fight for something totally different, because this – whatever it is – isn’t working.”"

Bingo.

It is an interesting read, although I hope the conclusion, which is really kind of crystal ball, is just another opinion.

We sure do live in interesting times.
 
No one has countered the argument in the pieces above. Anybody?

"The Great Recession had wiped out some $9 tillion in household wealth. But after forty years, the conservative non-profit ecosystem had grown quite adept at waging battles of ideas. The think tanks, advocacy groups, and talking heads on the right sprang into action, shaping a political narrative that staved off the kind of course correction that might otherwise have been expected.

A key skirmish in this battle was the reframing of the history of the 2008 economic crash. From an empirical standpoint, it was hard to see it as anything other than a wipeout for the proponents of free-market fundamentalism and an argument for stronger government regulations. Like the Great Depression, it might have been expected to produce a backlash against those seen as irresponsible profiteers, resulting in more government intervention and a fairer tax system.

Joseph Stiglitz, the liberal economist, described the 2008 financial meltdown as the equivalent for free-market advocates to the fall of the Berlin Wall for Communists. Even the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Washington's free-market wise man nonpareil, admitted that he'd been wrong in thinking Adam Smith's invisible hand would save business from its own self-destruction. Potentially, the disaster was a "teachable moment" from which the country's economic conservatives could learn. This is not what happened, however. They instead started with their preferred conclusion and worked backward to reach it.

In what the economic writer and asset manager Barry Ritholtz labeled Wall Street's "big lie," scholars at conservative think tanks argued that the problem had been too much government, not too little. The lead role in the revisionism was played by the American Enterprise Institute, whose board was stocked with financial industry titans, many of whom were free-market zealots and regulars at the Koch donor seminars.

Specifically, AEI argued that government programs that helped low-income home buyers get mortgages caused the collapse. Ritholtz noted that these theories "failed to withstand even casual scrutiny." There was plenty wrong with the government's quasi-private mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but numerous nonpartisan studies ranging from Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies to the Government Accountability Office proved they were not a major cause of the 2008 crash. Yet by shifting the blame, Ritholtz noted, those "whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis" could continue to champion the "false narrative" that free markets "require no adult supervision."

Self-serving research from corporate-backed conservative think tanks wasn't exactly news by 2011, but what was surprising, Ritholtz contended, was that "they are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the big lie." Phil Angelides, the chairman of the bipartisan commission that Congress set up to investigate the causes of the crash, was also taken aback by the revisionism. In an op-ed column, he tried to remind the public that it had been "the recklessness of the financial industry and the abject failures of policymakers and regulators that brought the economy to its knees." Instead, though, he said, "those at the top of the economic heap" were peddling "shopworn data" that had been "analyzed and debunked by the committee." He conceded that history was written by the winners and that by 2011, while much of the country lagged behind, most of the financial sector had bounced back and "the historical rewrite is in full swing."

Soon politicians backed by the same conservative donors who funded the think tanks were echoing the "big lie." Marco Rubio, a rising Republican star from Florida, for instance, who had defeated a moderate in the 2010 Republican Senate primary with the help of forty-nine donors from the June 2010 Koch seminar, soon proclaimed, "This idea-that our problems were caused by a government that was too small-it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies." p 359 360 Dark Money' Jane Mayer

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money
 
Hello midcan5,

"They instead started with their preferred conclusion and worked backward to reach it. "

That would be consistent with BIG GREED.
 
Hello midcan5,

"They instead started with their preferred conclusion and worked backward to reach it. "

That would be consistent with BIG GREED.
Specific to the paragraphs he referenced, we had that argument on the boards back in the day. Just as Conservatives here peddle lies and talking points every day re. trump, they all came out and blamed the CRA lending when the market crashed in '08. You can still find the remnants on this board, as a handful still point to Clinton as the one who magically crashed the lending institutions ten years after leaving office.

No matter that he signed the Gramm/Leach/Bliley act. I wonder who those folks are?

Fact: The lion's share of bogus paper was written by private lenders who weren't subject to CRA requirements.

Whereas I haven't read the article in the OP, we see the same methods employed in all debates. It started with the attacks on Dan Rather when Bush was running for re election. Some Right Wing blogger fabricated information regarding the documents that Mary Mapes relied on, and the entire internet ran with it.

It was the first time we ever experienced the power of the internet with respect to the formation/nurturing of a false narrative that grossly misinforms the people of this country.

Now, it's commonplace, and we had better learn from the '16 election that there must be some way to rein in the propaganda machines.
 
Basically. McCarthy removed the right of American working people to analyse their condition, and the union-busters destroyed their ability to do anything much about it. That's why you get idiocies like Trump or Brexit - the destruction of normal democratic politics.
 
Basically. McCarthy removed the right of American working people to analyse their condition, and the union-busters destroyed their ability to do anything much about it.

Kindly explain how, and provide verifiable citations for each assertion. Thanks!

That's why you get idiocies like Trump or Brexit - the destruction of normal democratic politics.

Wasn't Trump elected in a legally-prescribed manner?

Didn't the British people vote for Brexit in a referendum?
 
Edit: after my reply is OP on topic.

I believe this premise is unsupported by the factual record. Can you cite any historical evidence to support this contention, please? Thanks!

For now I will give the words of a Republican president and include a link on life in America in fifties. I knew no one when I grew up who called themselves conservative nor liberal. That is a political creation used to divide even though we are all liberal and conservative in all manner of ways.

"And I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience. This concept is indeed a part of America, and without that concept we would be something else than what we are." Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/1950s


------------------------------------------------------

The power of money and smoking. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...an/23/free-market-thinktanks-tobacco-industry
 
Edit: after my reply is OP on topic.



For now I will give the words of a Republican president and include a link on life in America in fifties. I knew no one when I grew up who called themselves conservative nor liberal. That is a political creation used to divide even though we are all liberal and conservative in all manner of ways.

"And I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience. This concept is indeed a part of America, and without that concept we would be something else than what we are." Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/1950s


------------------------------------------------------

The power of money and smoking. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...an/23/free-market-thinktanks-tobacco-industry

I don't accept the premise that this example proves your broad assertion.

consider how unified America was during WWII and after for many years.

In fact, the synopsis from History.com seems to contradict your summation.
 
I don't accept the premise that this example proves your broad assertion. In fact, the synopsis from History.com seems to contradict your summation.

That is your right but it doesn't make it right. The best book on this topic is Manchester's book quoted below. Historians have called the period from after WWII till Reagan as our golden years. I doubt any historian would call the past thirty years golden? I do admit it took till the sixties for blacks to gain a bit of the American dream. but those gains are a part of the fear and bigotry of many whites today. Of course it wasn't perfect and opinions are all over the place, but the sense of unity and promise are totally missing today and much of it is do to the influence of 'dark money'.

"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'" William Manchester quote from 'The Power and the Glory'


'Opinion: The U.S. economy will never have another Golden Age'

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-economy-will-never-have-another-golden-age-2017-09-01

"Companies achieve great economies, but they do so in part by driving wages down, and over time they will drive wages below the subsistence level unless the government intervenes to prevent them." Adam Smith
 
That is your right but it doesn't make it right. The best book on this topic is Manchester's book quoted below. Historians have called the period from after WWII till Reagan as our golden years. I doubt any historian would call the past thirty years golden? I do admit it took till the sixties for blacks to gain a bit of the American dream. but those gains are a part of the fear and bigotry of many whites today. Of course it wasn't perfect and opinions are all over the place, but the sense of unity and promise are totally missing today and much of it is do to the influence of 'dark money'.

"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'" William Manchester quote from 'The Power and the Glory'


'Opinion: The U.S. economy will never have another Golden Age'

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-economy-will-never-have-another-golden-age-2017-09-01

"Companies achieve great economies, but they do so in part by driving wages down, and over time they will drive wages below the subsistence level unless the government intervenes to prevent them." Adam Smith

Opinions aren't facts. The 1950s saw many divisive events in the political life of post-war Americans.

Nuclear disarmament, civil rights, the Red scare, the free speech movement, the Zionist movement that led to the founding of Israel are all examples of issues that caused Americans to passionately diverge from one another in significant ways.

I maintain that the number and pervasive influence of these issues belies any bland generalization that the post-war years were a period of national unity.
 
Not national unity but a sense of country and a sense of responsibility to it and to its people. That is what money and privilege have destroyed, a kind of shallowness evident in our politics and in our values today. Corporations back then for instance cared for their employees, taught them, and provided healthcare as well as pensions. I was there so this not an opinion. That has changed. A book that covers topic is linked below.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land' http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7821831-ill-fares-the-land
 
Dependent on a person's level of interest and the sites and books they read one can say these are the best of times or the worst of times. Of course most people live busy lives and can pay attention to only so much. That fact is a plus for propaganda as money, especially dark money, can spread their ideas more easily. The site linked after this piece does a good job of reviewing economic info. The quoted piece is the negative, but the article is high praise for ???

"But the Trump administration's economic agenda has also revealed a second and more significant point: Economic growth alone—however beneficial, however necessary—is unlikely to address some of the biggest challenges that the American economy faces in the 21st century. As Republicans tout the soaring stock market, growing economy, and low unemployment rate, their rhetoric has become disconnected from the experiences of many Americans. The GOP would do well to pay attention to its constituents, lest it find itself flat-footed come the next election.

Economic growth alone is unlikely to alleviate pressure on American workers, especially those with fewer skills. Real wages have more or less stayed flat for all but the highest earners since 1970 (though the post-tax income of families has risen through government and employee benefits). An increasingly large share of prime-age men and women have decided to leave the labor force entirely, whether it's because their jobs have been eliminated by trade or automation, or the benefits of work simply no longer outweigh the costs. To be sure, economic growth helps to boost work and wages, but the pressure on low-wage American workers has persisted for decades—through boom and bust—and is likely to continue."

Repartee here: http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2019/02/okay-lets-have-themed-week-why-not.html
 
Back
Top