#(for the reagan trace) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

robertreich · 9 months

Video

youtube

Biden vs. Trump: Whose Economic Plan Is Better for You?

Trump failed to deliver on his number one campaign promise:

President Trump presided over a historic net loss of nearly 3 million American jobs, the worst jobs numbers ever recorded under an American president.

This is no fluke. America’s economy has almost always done worse under Republican presidents. A New York Times analysis found that since 1933, the U.S. economy has grown nearly twice as fast on average under Democrats.

Now Trump’s defenders claim it’s not his fault that the economy collapsed under his watch. It was the pandemic. But there are two big things wrong with this.

First, the pandemic recession was as bad as it was because of Trump. His failure to lead with any national strategy left America in chaos throughout 2020, long after other nations had developed coordinated testing, tracing, and social distancing plans that allowed them to reopen their economies.

But secondly, even before the pandemic, Trump failed to deliver on his economic promises. Job growth slowed under Trump.

America added more jobs in President Obama’s last three years than in Trump’s first three.

Even before the pandemic most middle-class American households saw their incomes go down under Trump.

Trump’s major economic policy was cutting taxes on the rich and big corporations. He promised it would result in $4,000 annual raises for workers. How did that work out? Did you get a $4,000 raise?

Republicans keep claiming that if we just cut enough taxes on the rich, the wealth will “trickle down.” But it never works. Wage growth slowed after Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich and big corporations. And the Bush and Trump tax cuts didn’t trickle down either.

These giveaways to the wealthy came at the expense of investments in infrastructure, education, and health care, making life more expensive and difficult for everyone who isn’t rich.

They also exploded the debt and deficit. Reagan oversaw a 186% increase in the national debt — the biggest percentage increase in over 70 years. The Bush and Trump tax cuts, that mostly benefited corporations and the rich, are the main reasons why America’s debt is growing faster than the economy.

Republican presidents have led us into the three worst economic crises of the last century, and Democrats led us out of them.

Republicans talk about running the country like a business, but they want to run it the way Trump ran his businesses: with massive debts, a string of failures, and payouts for the folks at the top, while workers get shafted again and again. Given Republicans’ track record, why would any hard-working American put their financial security in the hands of a Republican president ever again?

#youtube #economics #politics #economy #election #videos #video #Donald Trump #Joe Biden

402 notes · View notes

mesetacadre · 3 months

Text

one thing that eventually strikes you after not a lot of time exposed to them is the sheer shallowness of most liberals' reasoning. Usamerican democrats are not the only kind of liberal of course, but their incessant presence means this post is mostly based on them. Liberalism in itself isn't necessarily shallow, even if idealism is, IMO, a very limiting framework. But it is overwhelming how simplistic and even childish these people can get.

It's less that they argue with what you say but rather throw a series of phrases and simple ideas that sound related to what you said. It's uncountable the amount of times liberals' reply to posts of mine talking about electoralism and the marxist position on it (which is more nuanced than "don't vote") just boil down to "but trump", even though most times I'm not even talking about the US, or "well what else do you propose doing" and then ignore the many times I've talked about that, sometimes in the very same post they're replying to. And there is no depth here, there is no substance to take apart in the first place. What I'd consider a respectable liberal explanation on voting; civicism, the idea of representative democracy, how you have to make yourself heard, etc, do actually have some substance and an ideological background. But there is none in this case, none whatsoever. Lesser-evilism is probably the most complicated idea the common USamerican democrat will defend, but that framework only makes sense in actual dichotomies without any alternative choices, which electoralism never is. That's why they like the trolley problem so much, as well. It's an illusion of depth that falls apart as soon as it's constrated with reality.

Let's take another example, liberal opposition to revolutions. The developed liberal opposition to them goes along the lines of the violation of private property and an outright rejection of a class-based analysis of society, of course this argumentative line will vary depending on who's talking. But the vast, vast majority of usamerican democrat liberals who even engage with revolutionary ideas in the first place will not go there and instead, never thinking outside the context of the US of course, will argue nonsense and essentially just call you bloodthirsty, and parrot truisms like "at the end of the day, it will be the common people and/or minorities who suffer the most".

There are no traces of actually engaging with what the other person says, they have lodged themselves in the narrowest worldview possible and will not even let their gaze stray from it, let alone venture out of it. No intellectual curiosity, no willingness to think about other contexts than the US post-2016 and maybe Reagan's years. I can't decide if this attitude is more pathetic or pitiful. Not even expecting them to agree with me, that's their prerogative. There seems to be just no desire to ever change an opinion

#seriousposting

157 notes · View notes

anarchywoofwoof · 9 months

Note

do u have posts where you talk abt prison abolition and alternatives to police? that'd be nice

so i've actually tried to approach abolition before multiple times and quite frankly, there are so many incredibly valuable insights provided by POC (People Of Color) and lifelong abolitionists that exist on the internet, it would be a tremendous disservice for my pasty white ass to sit here and try and educate anyone on this topic alone.

the last time i had this ask come up (you can find that post here), i deferred to FD Signifier for my thoughts on police abolition. i will do so again here for maximum visibility because he deserves it far more than i do. it is close to 2 hours long, but easily the best explanation or breakdown you'll find in such a relatively short time frame.

youtube

i'll expand on this by offering some of the more popular works that i'm aware of and a few works that i've read regarding abolition.

"invisible no more" by andrea j. ritchie provides an examination of how Black women, indigenous women, and women of color experience racial profiling, police brutality, and immigration enforcement. it aims to contextualize individual stories within the broader system of police violence and mass incarceration, calling for a radical shift in the way that we look at public safety.

"policing the planet" edited by jordan t. camp and christina heatherton combines firsthand accounts from activists with research from scholars and artistic reflections. it aims to trace back the global spread of the broken-windows policing strategy and its wide-ranging effects.

"our enemies in blue: police and power in america" by kristian williams addresses the history of policing in the united states, arguing that police brutality is intrinsic to law enforcement. it explores the relationship you've probably heard before between police and power from the era of slave patrols to modern times.

"the new jim crow" by michelle alexander extremely influential, you've probably heard of this one. it goes over how the u.s. criminal justice system functions as a system of racial control, particularly through the failed war on drugs, disproportionately targeting Black men and devastating communities of color (obligatory fuck nixon and reagan)

"violence work: state power and the limits of police" by micol siegel offers a new perspective on the police as the embodiment of state power, interconnected with the state and global capital. this one gives a unique examination of the u.s. state department's office of public safety and its influence on international police training.

"chokehold: policing Black men" by paul butler, who is a former federal prosecutor, examines the laws and practices that systematically target Black men, perpetuating institutional violence and societal fear.

"no more police: a case for abolition" by mariame kaba and andrea ritchie presents a comprehensive and practical plan for police abolition. it addresses current concerns while envisioning a future of reduced violence and enhanced justice. this is a cornerstone work and it's been lauded in many circles as being a definitive text on police abolition.

#borking back #police abolition #criminal justice #prison abolition

264 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 8 months

Text

Boeing, Spirit and Jetblue, a monopoly horror-story

Catch me in Miami! I'll be at Books and Books in Coral Gables TONIGHT (Jan 22) at 8PM. Berliners: Otherland has added a second date (Jan 28) for my book-talk after the first one sold out - book now!

Last week, William Young, an 82 year old federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, blocked the merger of Spirit Airlines and Jetblue. It was a seismic event:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.254267/gov.uscourts.mad.254267.461.0_6.pdf

Seismic because the judge's opinion is full of rhetoric associated with the surging antitrust revival, sneeringly dismissed by corporate apologists as "hipster antitrust." Young called America's airlines and "oligopoly," a situation he blamed on out-of-control mergers. As Matt Stoller writes, this is the first airline merger to be blocked by the DOJ and DOT since deregulation in 1978:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/antitrust-enforcers-block-the-jetblue

The judge wasn't shy about why he was reviving a pre-Jimmy Carter theory of antitrust: "[the merger] does violence to the core principle of antitrust law, 'to protect] markets –- and its market participants — from anticompetitive harm."

The legal arguments the judge advances are fascinating and worthy of study:

https://twitter.com/johnmarknewman/status/1747343447227519122

But what really caught my eye was David Dayen's American Prospect article about the judge's commentary on the state of the aviation industry:

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/01-19-2024-how-boeing-ruined-the-jetblue-spirit-merger/

Why, after all, have Spirit and Jetblue been so ardent in pursuing mergers? Jetblue has had two failed merger attempts with Virgin, and this is the third time they've failed in an attempt to merge with Spirit. Spirit, meanwhile, just lost a bid to merge with Frontier. Why are these two airlines so obsessed with combining with each other or any other airline that will have them?

As Dayen explains, it's because US aviation has been consumed by monopoly, hollowed out to the point of near collapse, thanks to neoliberal policies at every part of the aviation supply-chain. For one thing, there's just not enough pilots, nor enough air-traffic controllers (recall that Reagan's first major act in office was to destroy the air traffic controller's union).

But even more importantly, there are no more planes. Boeing's waitlist for airplane delivery stretches to 2029. And Boeing is about to deliver a lot fewer planes, thanks to its disastrous corner-cutting, which grounded a vast global fleet of 737 Max aircraft (again):

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-01-09-boeing-737-max-financial-mindset/

The 737 disaster(s) epitomize the problems of inbred, merger-obsessed capitalism. As Luke Goldstein wrote, the rampant defects in Boeing's products can be traced to the decision to approve Boeing's 1997 merger with McDonnell-Douglas, a company helmed by Jack Welch proteges, notorious for cost-cutting at the expense of reliability:

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-01-09-boeing-737-max-financial-mindset/

Boeing veterans describe the merger as the victory of the bean-counters, which led to a company that chases short-term profits over safety and even the viability of its business:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=213075

After all, the merger turned Boeing into the single largest exporter in America, a company far too big to fail, teeing up tens of billions from Uncle Sucker, who also account for 40% of Boeing's income:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/its-time-to-nationalize-and-then

The US government is full of ex-Boeing execs, just as Boeing's executive row is full of ex-US federal aviation regulators. Bill Clinton's administration oversaw the creation of Boeing's monopoly in the 1990s, but it was the GOP that rescued Boeing the first time the 737 Maxes started dropping out of the sky.

Boeing's biggest competitor is the state-owned Airbus, a joint venture whose major partners are the governments of France, Spain and Germany – governments that are at least theoretically capable of thinking about the public good, not short-term profits. Boeing's largest equity stakes are held by the Vanguard Group, Vanguard Group subfiler, Newport Trust Company, and State Street Corporation:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-01-18-airbus-advantage/

As Matt Stoller says, America has an airline that the public bails out, protects, and subsidizes but has no say over. Boeing has all the costs of public ownership and none of the advantages. It's the epitome of privatized gains and socialized losses.

This is Reagan's other legacy, besides the disastrous shortage of air-traffic controllers. The religious belief in deregulation – especially deregulation of antitrust enforcement – leads to a deregulated market. It leads to a market that is regulated by monopolists who secretly deliberate, behind closed board-room doors, and are accountable only to their shareholders. These private regulators are unlike government regulators, who are at least nominally bound by obligations to transparency and public accountability. But they share on thing in common with those public regulators: when they fuck up, the public has to pay for their mistakes.

It's a good thing Boeing's executives are too big to fail, because they fail constantly. Boeing execs who are warned by subcontractors of dangerous defects in their planes order those subcontractors to lie, or lose their contracts:

https://www.levernews.com/boeing-supplier-ignored-warnings-of-excessive-amount-of-defects-former-employees-allege/

As a result of Boeing's mismanagement, America's only aircraft supplier steadily has lost ground to Airbus, which today enjoys a 2:1 advantage over Boeing. But it's not just Boeing that's the weak link aviation. US aviation is a chain entirely composed of weak links.

Take jet engines: Pratt & Whitney are Spirit's major engine supplier, but these engines suck as much as Boeing's fuselages. Much of Spirit's fleet is chronically grounded because the engines don't run. The reason Spirit buys its engines from those loveable goofballs at Pratt & Whitney? The Big Four airlines have bought all the engines for sale from other suppliers, leaving smaller airlines to buy their engines from fat-fingered incompetents.

This is why – as Dayen notes – smaller US airlines are so horny for intermarriage. They can't grow by adding routes, because there are no pilots. Even if they could get pilots, there'd be no slots because there are no air traffic controllers. But even if they could get pilots and slots, there are no planes, because Boeing sucks and Airbus can't make planes fast enough to supply the airlines that don't trust Boeing. And even if they could get aircraft, there are no engines because the Big Four aviation cartel cornered the market on working jet engines.

Part of Jetblue and Spirit's pitch was that they hand off the routes that they'd cut after their merger to other small airlines, like Frontier and Allegiant. But Frontier and Allegiant can't service those routes: they don't have pilots, slots, planes or engines.

Spirit hasn't been profitable since 2019 and is sitting on $4b in debt. Jetblue was proposing to finance its acquisition with another $3.5b in debt. The resulting airline could only be profitable by sharply cutting routes and massively raising prices, cutting 6.1m seats/year. With a debt:capital ratio of 111%, the company would have no slack and would need a bailout any time anything went wrong. Not coincidentally, the Big Four airlines also have debt:capital ratios of about 100-120%, and they do get bailouts ever time anything goes wrong.

As William McGee reminds us, it's been 14 years since anyone's started a new US airline:

https://twitter.com/WilliamJMcGee/status/1747363491445375072

US aviation is deeply cursed. But Boeing's self-disassembling aircraft show us why we can't fix it by allowing mergers: private monopolies, shorn of the discipline of competition and regulation, are extraction machines that turn viable businesses into debt-wracked zombies.

This is a subject that's beautifully illustrated in Dayen's 2020 book Monopolized, in the chapter on health care:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/29/fractal-bullshit/#dayenu

The US health care system has been in trouble for a long time, but the current nightmare starts with the deregulation of pharma. Pharma companies interbred with one another in a string of incestuous marriages that produced these dysfunctional behemoths that were far better at shifting research costs to governments and squeezing customers than they were at making drugs. The pharma giants gouged hospitals for their products, and in response, hospitals underwent their own cousin-fucking merger orgy, producing regional monopolies that were powerful enough to resist pharma's price-hikes. But in growing large enough to resist pharma profiteering, the hospitals also became powerful enough to screw over insurers. Insurers then drained their own gene pool by combining with one another until most of us have three or fewer insurers we can sign up with – companies that are both big enough to refuse hospital price-hikes, and to hike premiums on us.

Thus monopoly begets monopoly: with health sewn up by monopolies in medical tech, drugs, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance, and hospitals, the only easy targets for goosing profits are people:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/05/hillrom/#baxter-international

This is how you get a US medical system that costs more than any other rich nation's system to operate, delivers worse outcomes than those other systems, and treats medical workers worse than any other wealthy country.

Now, rich people can still buy their way out of this mess, but you have to be very rich indeed to buy your way out of the commercial aviation system. There's a lot of 1%ers who fly commercial, and they're feeling the squeeze – and there's no way they're leasing their own jets.

Stein's Law holds that "anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop." America's aviation mergers – in airlines, aircraft and engines – have hollowed out the system. The powerful, brittle companies that control aviation have so much power over their workforce that they've turned air traffic controller and pilot into jobs that no one wants – and they used their bailout money to buy out the most senior staff's contracts, sending them to early retirement.

Now, I'm with the people who say that most of US aviation should be replaced with high-speed rail, but that's not why our technocrats and finance barons have gutted aviation. They did it to make a quick buck. A lot of quick bucks. Now the system is literally falling to pieces in midair. Now the system is literally on fire:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/19/us/miami-boeing-plane-engine-fire.html

Which is how you get a Reagan appointed federal judge issuing an opinion that has me punching the air and shouting, "Yes, comrade! To the barricades!" Anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop. When the system is falling to pieces around you, ideology disintegrates like a 737 Max.

I'm Kickstarting the audiobook for The Bezzle, the sequel to Red Team Blues, narrated by @wilwheaton! You can pre-order the audiobook and ebook, DRM free, as well as the hardcover, signed or unsigned. There's also bundles with Red Team Blues in ebook, audio or paperback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/21/anything-that-cant-go-on-forever/#will-eventually-stop

Image: Vitaly Druchenok (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ECAir_Boeing_737-306_at_Brazzaville_Airport_by_Vitaly_Druchenok.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

Joe Ravi (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #aviation #antitrust #monopoly #boeing #jetblue #spirit airlines #oligopoly #air traffic controllers #airbus #steins law

250 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 8 months

Text

Everything wrong with America for the past 40 years can be traced directly back to Ronald Reagan. And I dO mean everything

Everything

#politics #ronald reagan #reaganism #republicans #conservatism #reaganomics #trickle down economics #living wages #inequality

131 notes · View notes

pluckyredhead · 2 months

Note

(I ALSO have thoughts about last year's Robin Lives! one-shot, and by thoughts I mean a deeply skeptical conspiracy theory that there was ever any real possibility Jason would live back in 1988, but that's also for another ask.)

Please do tell

Okay, so I actually went back and compared the original Batman #428 and the alternate Robin Lives! version they released last year, and I think I've maybe talked myself out of my conspiracy theory, but here you go.

So supposedly, in order to meet printing deadlines, DC had two versions of Batman #428 ready to go: one where Jason lives, and one where he dies. That way they could keep taking calls to the 1900 number and keep the voting open as long as possible without delaying a comic.

For years, this page floated around the internet as proof that there was a version of the comic where Jason lived:

Aside from this page, the only significant difference between the two is this:

Original on the left, alternate on the right. You can see that the layout is the same, the two panels on the bottom are the same, and the staging of the whole middle row of panels is nearly identical, with Dick taking the place of Alfred in the alternate version. They're different enough that I don't think it's clever editing - Jim Aparo really did draw the alternate version.

THAT SAID, there's also this panel, from the page before:

Original on the left, alternate on the right. Obviously Aparo duplicated his own work, possibly with tracing or masking, to edit the coffins, and the lettering comes later so that's easy to change. And honestly the layout of the alternate works better: it's starker and sadder with less clutter.

But it doesn't really make sense. Bruce's second line just kind of hangs there without a conclusion. More to the point, though...why did he invite Commissioner Gordon to Jason's mom's funeral??? "Please come to my son's funeral in your inappropriate red coat" checks out. "Please come to my son's surprise biological mother's funeral in your inappropriate red coat; he will not be attending for Reasons" checks out...less.

When I first read Robin Lives! without having checked back with the original Batman #428, I was like "Holy shit they barely changed this, this is a scam, they never intended to let Jason live." Now, looking at those side-by-side page 16s up there, I do think they had a full version where Jason lived ready to go, at least penciled and inked. So I rescind my claim that it was a scam.

But the thing that's striking about reading them both is that the tone is exactly the same. It's deeply solemn and grieving (interjected with the absolute dipshit Reagan-era buffoonery of Joker becoming the Iranian ambassador, which is completely tonally inappropriate to both versions of the comic). It doesn't read like a near miss; it reads like a death. And the fact that the changes are so minor was probably necessary in order for Aparo to have both versions ready to go in time, but it means that the whole thing is weighted really heavily towards the version we got, the one where Jason died.

So given the Grim 'n' Gritty era in which this was published, the fact that the writer (Jim Starlin) is on record as hating Jason and wanting him gone (it could have been worse; Starlin wanted to do a "ripped from the headlines" story and have him die of AIDS, which I'm positive would have been disrespectful as hell and aged like milk), and little things like the funeral scene making a lot less sense if Jason survived...

I don't think the poll was fake. I think there was the possibility that Jason could have survived. But I think DC was banking pretty heavily on his death.

#jason todd #robin

34 notes · View notes