MAGAThread XIX: Hambergers, Noble Prizes, & Disinfectant

[Fahran]

Reaganomics, a policy that literally is named after Ronald Reagan, is what caused the stock market crash of '87 as well as being the reason why wages have remained flat since the 1980s. It's also a big part of the '08 economic meltdown.

Stagnant wages have been a feature of our economy since the late 1970s and the problem probably goes well beyond Reagan. Neoliberal trade policies, outsourcing, weaker trade unions, large-scale immigration of low-skill workers, etc. do not create social and economic conditions that allow for upward pressure on wages. Reagan and Clinton had a lot to do with that in truth, but it's not as though these positions are outside the political orthodoxy. Labour went up to bat for neoliberalsim. As have American leftists in recent years.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I can - the combination of the 1st and 14th amendment makes it extremely suspicious for churches to be under greater restrictions than casinos, bowling alleys, gyms, etc.

I'm not saying there weren't legitimate arguments on the other side, but I was bored and tried to get more of an answer than "I support Trump, let's respect all opinions, Republicans I've talked to agree with me" on the question of why he wanted Roberts to join the "Republican" justices.

I can't help but think that the Romans who overthrew the Roman Kingdom kills puppies every time somebody mentions GOP and Republic in the same sentence, re. "Republican justices".

[Cisairse]

Reaganomics, a policy that literally is named after Ronald Reagan, is what caused the stock market crash of '87 as well as being the reason why wages have remained flat since the 1980s. It's also a big part of the '08 economic meltdown.

Stagnant wages have been a feature of our economy since the late 1970s and the problem probably goes well beyond Reagan. Neoliberal trade policies, outsourcing, weaker trade unions, large-scale immigration of low-skill workers, etc. do not create social and economic conditions that allow for upward pressure on wages. Reagan and Clinton had a lot to do with that in truth, but it's not as though these positions are outside the political orthodoxy. Labour went up to bat for neoliberalsim. As have American leftists in recent years.

Correct. Reagan crafted those policies, and their implementation in the United States was presided over by him.

I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

[Northern Davincia]

I wish, but I find the notion that Reagan destroyed the economy to be absurd. It would require us to ignore Congress and the previous administration. The recession at the start of his presidency can be directly attributed to the stagflation period. I think Reagan managed it fairly well, as the economy was in decent shape when he left office.

In other news, presidents are unfairly blamed for the economy far too often.

Reaganomics, a policy that literally is named after Ronald Reagan, is what caused the stock market crash of '87 as well as being the reason why wages have remained flat since the 1980s. It's also a big part of the '08 economic meltdown.

Market corrections are inevitable when faced with long periods of growth. The stock market is not exactly the best way to measure economic health.
Also, I find it fascinating that every president since Reagan has been powerless to undo Reaganomics. It's almost as if the reality is more complex than that.

[Kowani]

Reaganomics, a policy that literally is named after Ronald Reagan, is what caused the stock market crash of '87 as well as being the reason why wages have remained flat since the 1980s. It's also a big part of the '08 economic meltdown.

Market corrections are inevitable when faced with long periods of growth. The stock market is not exactly the best way to measure economic health.
Also, I find it fascinating that every president since Reagan has been powerless to undo Reaganomics. It's almost as if the reality is more complex than that.

Almost like Reaganomics captured the popular imagination and has embedded itself into people’s minds as the “proper” way or something...

[The Black Forrest]

Reaganomics, a policy that literally is named after Ronald Reagan, is what caused the stock market crash of '87 as well as being the reason why wages have remained flat since the 1980s. It's also a big part of the '08 economic meltdown.

Market corrections are inevitable when faced with long periods of growth. The stock market is not exactly the best way to measure economic health.
Also, I find it fascinating that every president since Reagan has been powerless to undo Reaganomics. It's almost as if the reality is more complex than that.

Why would they undo what clearly benefits the upperclass?

[Northern Davincia]

Market corrections are inevitable when faced with long periods of growth. The stock market is not exactly the best way to measure economic health.
Also, I find it fascinating that every president since Reagan has been powerless to undo Reaganomics. It's almost as if the reality is more complex than that.

Why would they undo what clearly benefits the upperclass?

I distinctly remember the party in opposition to Reagan's being the party of the "little guy" as it likes to represent itself.

[Major-Tom]

Why would they undo what clearly benefits the upperclass?

I distinctly remember the party in opposition to Reagan's being the party of the "little guy" as it likes to represent itself.

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because we as a party have been unable to roll back large portions of Reagan's economic program, we're no longer for the little guy? I'm not saying the Dems are perfect, dear god we've had our fuckups in economic policy, be it from Obama or (especially) Clinton, but in terms of trying to make our economic system work a little better for "the little guy," I'd argue we have far more claim to that representation.

[The Emerald Legion]

I distinctly remember the party in opposition to Reagan's being the party of the "little guy" as it likes to represent itself.

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because we as a party have been unable to roll back large portions of Reagan's economic program, we're no longer for the little guy? I'm not saying the Dems are perfect, dear god we've had our fuckups in economic policy, be it from Obama or (especially) Clinton, but in terms of trying to make our economic system work a little better for "the little guy," I'd argue we have far more claim to that representation.

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

[Major-Tom]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because we as a party have been unable to roll back large portions of Reagan's economic program, we're no longer for the little guy? I'm not saying the Dems are perfect, dear god we've had our fuckups in economic policy, be it from Obama or (especially) Clinton, but in terms of trying to make our economic system work a little better for "the little guy," I'd argue we have far more claim to that representation.

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

I can understand your point here, but regulations is such a broad term and has many broad-reaching implications. Many regulations are in place for the protection of the so-called "little guy," particularly in terms of employer vs employee relations, environmental regulations, workers safety regulations, policies for higher wages etc. I think the Dems, perhaps, have missed the mark on issues such as not pushing for licensing reform and even business taxation, but that doesn't negate the crushing implications of laissez-faire Reagonomics on the working class as a whole.

[Gormwood]

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

I can understand your point here, but regulations is such a broad term and has many broad-reaching implications. Many regulations are in place for the protection of the so-called "little guy," particularly in terms of employer vs employee relations, environmental regulations, workers safety regulations, policies for higher wages etc. I think the Dems, perhaps, have missed the mark on issues such as not pushing for licensing reform and even business taxation, but that doesn't negate the crushing implications of laissez-faire Reagonomics on the working class as a whole.

It has the undertones of a disingenuous "If the Democrats can't get it perfect on the first try why should we give them a shot?" argument.

[Northern Davincia]

I distinctly remember the party in opposition to Reagan's being the party of the "little guy" as it likes to represent itself.

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because we as a party have been unable to roll back large portions of Reagan's economic program, we're no longer for the little guy? I'm not saying the Dems are perfect, dear god we've had our fuckups in economic policy, be it from Obama or (especially) Clinton, but in terms of trying to make our economic system work a little better for "the little guy," I'd argue we have far more claim to that representation.

It's not that Democrats have failed to undo Reaganomics (despite having plenty of opportunities to do so), it's that they're unwilling to do it.

[Northern Davincia]

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

I can understand your point here, but regulations is such a broad term and has many broad-reaching implications. Many regulations are in place for the protection of the so-called "little guy," particularly in terms of employer vs employee relations, environmental regulations, workers safety regulations, policies for higher wages etc. I think the Dems, perhaps, have missed the mark on issues such as not pushing for licensing reform and even business taxation, but that doesn't negate the crushing implications of laissez-faire Reagonomics on the working class as a whole.

I advise caution in referring to Reaganomics as "laissez-faire."

I can understand your point here, but regulations is such a broad term and has many broad-reaching implications. Many regulations are in place for the protection of the so-called "little guy," particularly in terms of employer vs employee relations, environmental regulations, workers safety regulations, policies for higher wages etc. I think the Dems, perhaps, have missed the mark on issues such as not pushing for licensing reform and even business taxation, but that doesn't negate the crushing implications of laissez-faire Reagonomics on the working class as a whole.

It has the undertones of a disingenuous "If the Democrats can't get it perfect on the first try why should we give them a shot?" argument.

They haven't gotten it right in 40 years, if we're counting from when Reagan left office. Do you remember the definition of insanity?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because we as a party have been unable to roll back large portions of Reagan's economic program, we're no longer for the little guy? I'm not saying the Dems are perfect, dear god we've had our fuckups in economic policy, be it from Obama or (especially) Clinton, but in terms of trying to make our economic system work a little better for "the little guy," I'd argue we have far more claim to that representation.

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

I thought of warning M-T, that "the little guy" doesn't mean (just) working class people, but also includes (or is) small business.

Does your theory apply to individuals at all? Or are the bad old Democrats oppressing everyone by oppressing small businesses?

[Northern Davincia]

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

I thought of warning M-T, that "the little guy" doesn't mean (just) working class people, but also includes (or is) small business.

Does your theory apply to individuals at all? Or are the bad old Democrats oppressing everyone by oppressing small businesses?

Yes.

[Major-Tom]

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

I thought of warning M-T, that "the little guy" doesn't mean (just) working class people, but also includes (or is) small business.

Does your theory apply to individuals at all? Or are the bad old Democrats oppressing everyone by oppressing small businesses?

I'm often terrible at proofreading my own shit to make sure I'm responding, well, properly? Better I learn the hard way.

[Major-Tom]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because we as a party have been unable to roll back large portions of Reagan's economic program, we're no longer for the little guy? I'm not saying the Dems are perfect, dear god we've had our fuckups in economic policy, be it from Obama or (especially) Clinton, but in terms of trying to make our economic system work a little better for "the little guy," I'd argue we have far more claim to that representation.

It's not that Democrats have failed to undo Reaganomics (despite having plenty of opportunities to do so), it's that they're unwilling to do it.

In a sense, kind of, which I partially conceded to. It's not a monolith you can completely undo at one fell swoop, as I know you probably understand, and you can attribute the lack of action to the last two Democratic Presidents, particularly Bill.

Although I would add that both administrations, especially the Obama administration, have tried to roll back some of the excesses of the general policies and ideas behind Reaganomics, and more pertinently, the Dems have swung rather leftward ever since Bernie's 2016 run. Make of that what you will, from my point of view, I'm saying that the Democrats are seemingly more authentic about curbing and reining in a lot of neoliberal economic policy, and I personally see that as a generally positive development.

[Northern Davincia]

It's not that Democrats have failed to undo Reaganomics (despite having plenty of opportunities to do so), it's that they're unwilling to do it.

In a sense, kind of, which I partially conceded to. It's not a monolith you can completely undo at one fell swoop, as I know you probably understand, and you can attribute the lack of action to the last two Democratic Presidents, particularly Bill.

Although I would add that both administrations, especially the Obama administration, have tried to roll back some of the excesses of the general policies and ideas behind Reaganomics, and more pertinently, the Dems have swung rather leftward ever since Bernie's 2016 run. Make of that what you will, from my point of view, I'm saying that the Democrats are seemingly more authentic about curbing and reining in a lot of neoliberal economic policy, and I personally see that as a generally positive development.

At this point I will create a distinction between Democratic voters, who are openly anti-Reaganomics, and the Democratic establishment, who are neoliberals to the core.
The establishment is unwilling to change the status quo, and Biden represents that unwillingness completely.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because we as a party have been unable to roll back large portions of Reagan's economic program, we're no longer for the little guy? I'm not saying the Dems are perfect, dear god we've had our fuckups in economic policy, be it from Obama or (especially) Clinton, but in terms of trying to make our economic system work a little better for "the little guy," I'd argue we have far more claim to that representation.

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

So if we regulate the little guy suffers and if we don’t the big companies will treat them nice?

[Gormwood]

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

So if we regulate the little guy suffers and if we don’t the big companies will treat them nice?

"Don't tax us at all or we'll move to another country!"

[Northern Davincia]

Eh... Not really. By and large it's the little guy who suffers from the sorts of Burdensome regulations that the Democrats like to push. The big companies can afford to comply with regulations, and are happy to do so to eliminate small scale competition from the board.

So if we regulate the little guy suffers and if we don’t the big companies will treat them nice?

The point is that we shouldn't moralize economics excessively. The big companies can survive regulations that the small business cannot.

[Northern Davincia]

So if we regulate the little guy suffers and if we don’t the big companies will treat them nice?

"Don't tax us at all or we'll move to another country!"

I see nothing wrong with this.

[The Black Forrest]

"Don't tax us at all or we'll move to another country!"

I see nothing wrong with this.

That’s fine. We can establish departure taxes.

[Gormwood]

I see nothing wrong with this.

That’s fine. We can establish departure taxes.

And calculate it off their profit.

[The Emerald Legion]

I see nothing wrong with this.

That’s fine. We can establish departure taxes.

No you won't. You'll find yourself mysteriously losing your election by virtue of having no campaign funds and a more pro business candidate taking your place.

Large corporations own both parties. Pretending either is free of them is silly.