GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
As you say, the new tech doesn’t seem to produce near as many jobs, a big problem!
in U.S. in ‘ 76, ‘88, or ‘92, a liberal Democrat wins and has reasonably successful presidency.
- Thread starter GeographyDude
- Start date
Focusing on "good jobs"/"middle clas jobs" isn't sustainable. You only get paperwork, increased social/ecoonomic bottlenecks and loss of economic competition from it.
It'd work better to decomoddify various things like healthcare, plus increase people's freedom of choice by say having a basic income+developed nation healthcare system so they're not tied down to employers.
It'd work better to decomoddify various things like healthcare, plus increase people's freedom of choice by say having a basic income+developed nation healthcare system so they're not tied down to employers.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Scoop Jackson makes for a good ATL since he’s liberal economically but conservative
For a given value of “liberal”, Scoop Jackson ran with labor support in 1976. . .
vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, meaning they’re going to have to do more than 50% of the work toward a peace treaty.
Just on union membership, Canada to this day does better than U.S.
And regarding Humphrey, he had bladder cancer beginnng around 1970 and progressing about 8 years. And different treatments he and his doctors tried didn’t really work.
Last edited:
Like @interpoltomo noted: "focusing on "good jobs"/"middle clas jobs" isn't sustainable. You only get paperwork, increased social/ecoonomic bottlenecks and loss of economic competition from it."
The whole point is for the people to have more spending money and thus keep the big wheel turning. Making a universal single-payer healthplan would work for that along with other reforms. Wage increases probably as well when trying to deal with the service economy though maybe consumer culture would get reexamined in the face of such a cultural shift that a new approach is taken entirely
Yeah. "good jobs" being promoted helps nobody besides the few able to get them and makes things worse for everyone else.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
The following source is saying it was a 1978 law (Democratic Congress) loosening up on real estate loans as one of the causes of the 1989 & ‘90 Savings & Loan crisis.
CHRONOLOGY-S&L crisis of the 1980s
The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s saw more than 1,000 S&Ls collapse, costing the U.S. government more than $100 billion.www.reuters.com
1978 - The Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act eases rules on S&L investment in land development, construction and education loans.
Last edited:
Thomas1195
Banned
I was talking about the later deregulation in the 1980s under Reagan that made even Paul Volcker frightened, and when Volcker began to oppose him, he packed the Fed with people like Greenspan. That would not happen with a Democrat in the 1980s.
Yeah, and Volcker’s tight fisted approach with inflation was apparently one of the reasons for the well-known boom of the 80s economy. How do you think that would fare under a left-leaning liberal?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And true, some of it is government driven, like my state of Texas used to make it harder for someone with a criminal record to get a hairstylist license! 🤓 And I think, sadly, we still do.
But a lot is corporate driven. For example, I know someone who works in a mid-sized chemical plant. They were bought out by a bigger outfit whose gameplan seems to be to spruce up and sell. They improved the landscaping, and that part is probably rational. But what isn’t so rational is requiring a college degree for some managerial positions, when you might be better off going with someone with a lot of experience. Or go the hybrid route where you send your managers to professional conferences, which also has a lot of overlap with college.
In fact, the new company seems to be going the route of creating more departments, but then going skimpy in staffing them.
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
As long as we keep in mind that Volcker actually had a number of positions from Aug. ‘79 forward before coming around to inflation-hawking, well, I’m semi-okay using him as shorthand.
To the question, probably less deficit spending than Reagan because Reagan could get away with it! There really is a big pattern in American politics — only Nixon can go to China, only Reagan could make peace with the Soviets, only Clinton could ramp up mass incarceration, and (?) only Obama could ramp up drone warfare. You really can make big moves against type because there’s not much opposition at all, or it’s very slow in catching up.
As far as the 1980s boom, because our T-notes paid higher interest rates, European and Japanese money poured into U.S. economy. Per this Bartel guy:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?421923-2/ronald-reagan-cold-war-global-politics
“an immense Reagan financial build-up underwrote the renewal of American prosperity at home and the projection of American power abroad during the 1980s.”
—> Please see 7:35 into video
Last edited:
Well, it's different from each. The GOP's focus on attacking the left means they can promote Nixon and Reagan to do so because they have the "anti-communist" creds to do so and thus be projected in a certain way to the public. The Dems meanwhile are just part of the growing forever-war based economy like the GOP so it's differing reasons.
Mind you, most people don't really know that Reagan undid his tax cuts because they made the economy worse. So this is something to keep note of.