I think Richard is some kind of natural contrarian. (I know because I am one myself.) He's spent so much time on RW social media he begins to think the whole world is RW social media, so now his contrariness kicks in and next thing you know he's sounding like a teabagged David Brooks to "own the RW". I don't think he's stupid, he's just reacting to what he sees online and feels compelled to countersignal. If X suddenly became the Twitter of 2020 then Richard would get based again.
That said, I don't trust people that have been redpilled but then find their way back to liberalism. I don't know how that is possible unless they've been given donor bucks, which is possible with Richard.
Hanania got paid 700k by an anonymous donor, now he goes batshit crazy on praising Indians. He also likes race mixing with Oriental women, which would further explain his fondness of neoliberalism globalization.
This is my theory on Hanania as well. Paradoxically, contrarian writers tend to be more susceptible to audience capture than other, more ideologically rigid types. I don't want to psychologize too much but I think Richard must have been bullied pretty hard in middle school.
I don't think you need much more explanation for Hanania than that racism and antisemitism was how you trolled back in 2010s and saying neoliberal globalism has no competition, Fukuyama was right, etc, is how you troll in 2025.
Im confused at keith calling neoliberals leftist, if anything it’s rightoid movement nowadays at least. For shits sake I’ll stomach that , the problem is keith addressed the failures then gave a rather off base response. “nationalism” isn’t a real economic alternative. Unless you confront the rent extraction system, private control of credit, land, and debt, you’re just shifting the flag over the same extraction machine. The issue isn’t global vs. national, it’s productive vs. parasitic. Real reform means de-financializing housing, banking, and public goods, not relabeling them.
This is like when people say “bitcoin fixes this” and I’m like wait , what?! People are still too broke to even buy in general…so you are still endangered from frothy poors at end game
Mistake reading the top, however the real argument is the nationalism question . We have “nationalist” now, Iran, North Korea, etc. they are pushed to outside bounds of the system - mostly by sanctions and the inability to fight against a NATO with virtually un limited funds. You have to answer the global reserve dollar question before nationalism (whatever economic system that comes from that , which isn’t stated) actually works. Which means i don’t think it’s practical - Adolf tried his best - and most people don’t even understand how it was done , so they champion “nationalism” but the answer is MEFO BILLS. BRICS is making strides but if they are still tide to BIS - they are still slaves
That's because you lack historical perspective. Liberalism by its very definition is leftist, and in fact was the original leftist movement. It's all built around rights discourse and ever expanding spheres of equality and liberty. Classical liberalism represents the 17th and 18th century version of the revolution, Orthodox Marxism represents the early 20th century phase, and intersectionality victim politics represent the latest phase of the revolution with trannies as the vanguard. An authentic right wing movement would need to champion pre-modern values. Everything else is just different shades of leftism fighting for the prominence.
disagree - both sides engage in it - it is inherently a sideless doctrine that includes both extremes. It’s market centric . “Do everything and anything”means do left and right. It isn’t classical liberalism which i agree is “left” due to supposed egalitarianism. Neo liberalism has nothing to do with egalitarianism
You are confusing neo liberalism (economic platform) - with the philosopy of liberalism.
“Capitalism” encompasses all forms of free markets. So when people collapse neo-liberalism into “capitalism,” they erase the managerial theology
Neo-liberalism makes a market distinction of its intent within that fold.
Trying to branch them under the same umbrella doesn’t tell the story. This is exactly why it’s labeled “Neo” liberal. It is almost totalitarian in its reach. It prioritizes market discipline, privatization, capital mobility, and state policies that protect financial markets.
Stick to nationalism politics, you're a midwit in economics at best
Richard hanania for all his ills is not halfway bad here as your copy paste is.
I will start with only reagan part because there is so much junk here:-
PART 1
"Federal debt as a percent of GDP almost doubled during Reagan’s time in office, as he embraced cutting tax revenue alongside a surge in military spending, and in nominal terms the national debt tripled due to his deficit spending."
Clearly work of some braindead economist who doesn't even differentiate between what a tax cut is vs a revenue cut is. Nearly no revenue was cut during the time periods of 1980 to 1988 as all the data from the federal real increase shows decent growth of 14% out pacing the real inflation
Meanwhile not even mentioning the tax cut was a nominal cut , nominal tax rates are never paid as exceptions are provided to the industry on subsidy and national direction.
The early real tax of Jimmy Carter was 30% and reagan 28% then later 23%
The actual fat bigger gain was the increase which is shown when tax receipts from the rich is mentioned which was some 18% to later on 25% of GNP.
The so called deregulation of reagan these idiot economist cry about about 24/7 is mere continuation of policy of deregulation by Jimmy Carter that caused the economic boom of 1980s
None of this of course is even close to actually explaining what caused the economic so called boom after the double dip recession(trash monetary policy continuation by Richard Nixon)of Jimmy Carter.
The reason was simple, a gentlemen from the federal reserve who's name is paul volcker a man who was ironically a carter apointment was the man who was overviewed by reagan who allowed interest rates to rise in double digits and move through turbulent time periods of high unemployment back to optimal inflation.
i won't even mention the 28% growth of reagan policies vs a similar recession during obama with pity 11.8% after 20 quarters.
"Obama’s economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and “stimulate” job growth. The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nation’s unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal government’s regulatory apparatus to harass the economy’s productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur. On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagan’s post-recession economy — an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent — did just that."
The truth about Reagans greatest work was simply learning what Jimmy Carter did right and leading forward
Here's what Jimmy Carter did in his presidency for some numb skull reagan deregulated everything-tard
according to economists writing for Regulation, the American railroad industry, which had been regulated since 1887:
By the 1970s, it was painfully obvious that rate regulation and associated inflexibilities had brought U.S. railroads to the brink of economic disaster.
The Staggers Act of 1980, endorsed by Carter, not only led to lower freight rates but also enabled the railroad industry to improve its capitalization, close unprofitable routes, and allow weaker railroads to merge with stronger ones. Declared Regulation:
The history of the U.S. railroad industry during the 30 years since the Staggers Act was signed is a story of enormous success. Productivity growth in the U.S. railroad sector has far outpaced the gains in the U.S. private domestic sector. The factors underlying this performance include pricing flexibility, economies of density achieved through line abandonments, industry consolidation, and the growth of long-haul coal and intermodal traffic.
Airline deregulation also was a major success. The architect of much of the deregulation efforts, Carter adviser Alfred Kahn, wrote:
Between 1976 and 1990 average yields per passenger mile—the average of the fares that passengers actually paid—declined 30 percent in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Average yields were declining in the decades before deregulation as well, thanks largely to the introduction of jets and jumbo jets. The best estimates, however, are that deregulated fares have been 10 to 18 percent lower, on average, than they would have been under the previous regulatory formulas. The savings to travelers have been in the range of $5 billion to $10 billion per year.
The Carter deregulation efforts even extended to the production of beer, making the modern craft beer industry possible:
When President Jimmy Carter signed a bill legalizing homebrewing in 1978, fewer than 100 breweries were operating in the United States. Two years ago, a study of the country’s beer scene found nine metropolitan areas with more than 100 active breweries.
This is just a retarded post hoc rationalization copy paste job. Reaganomics was the true impetus for the massive transfer of wealth from the average person to globalist elites that MAGA has now almost fully completed. That single factor alone has led to more familial breakdown and moral decay than any leftist Boogeyman - or retarded shit like troonery that was never a “left wing” issue until it was Astroturfed by a collection of AGP billionaires like “Jennifer” Pritzker, the Sacklers, or to a lesser extent wealth but less powerful Troons “in the arts” like the Wachowski's; every single one of them is a heterosexual MALE with high narcissistic traits. Quantico used to use these freaks to train recruits on basic profiling bc they offend (against women) so often. Shit even 69% of DEMOCRATIC voters describe themselves as “strongly opposed” to this nonsense but you’d never know that from the media, the Democratic Party, or right wing talking heads.
Bottom line: kneecapping the average American & sucking us all into a dreadful void isn't “living” but keep telling me the right is “based.”
I took a position and I must say what is true regardless of prevailing narrative,
If we were living in a perfectly efficient paradise with no scarcity misallocation, no controlled and managed interest rate and no intellectual property I wouldn't waste my time talking about reagonomics but the facts are clear, FDR intervention failed and created a broken window crisis that directly pushed him to be involved in ww2 and obama intervention failed to solve the causes and symptoms of banking crisis in addition to hampering development. If during carter-reagan administration-the growth was stable without additional baggages on energy,tech and finance industry then what is meaningfully a great result must be said to be what is
If the rich get rich as all inequality is a result of natural difference of man and this inequality is exaggerated and manipulated with intellectual property and regulations cartel then any attempts at reducing this inequality should be done in a way that un-natural deviation is reduced
In terms of politics:- Paleoconservatice>Jacksonian>madisonian>neoliberals>keynesians>socialist
If the three groups behind aren't present I will choose the neoliberals if not then keynesians
As far a 'family values' are concerned they are entirely cultural and have nothing to do with politics and are a seperate game from politics unless politics directly inhibit them such as in communism
Family values and culture may manifest into politics but they are not political first and foremost
However well fascist+natsoc may try to reverse the clock, they have failed to do say in any country they have presided
Chile has went from millitary hunta to democracy and it has become increasingly more progressive than most latin america countries today
So has spain who is filled to brim with communist it is unrecognizable, one wouldnt think a fascist catholic ran this country for 60-70 years or so
All family values and culture values are organic and it takes a century long time period to turn them to reality.
Those who like to brag about power and using the state police with courts to submit the population into thier ideals are running to be celebrities and be in fame/infamy, stroking their own ego- they want to be in Forbes top 100 historical leaders and preside over a personal millitary to satiate their inherent lust for power and respect.
These people by no means posses the ability to accelerate a truly organic process of coming together and forming a community, they want to be "heroes" that is laggards with short time horizon who didn't achieve anything worthwhile other than brutality
I posses no interest in the coming of these "strong man" to save the children, the women, the elderly and such
Neoliberals on the other hand are a window to gain what is lost- a direct control over a state, a family and away from controls many miles and states away.
Those who want us to be a "one big family" where some big inc technocracy will min/max output best scenario for our children are the enemies and I say it as such.
A man grows up under a careful two loving parents household who save,invest,prepare of him and he is taught by them values of honesty,bravery, intelligence respectfulness towards elderly,being soft spoken, helping the un-adva tange,the disabled and the ugly, he grows up taking from what his parents made and saves, is prude with money,alcohol and is not prone to addiction, violence,lust
He goes to religious ceremony, understands why his culture, his history and wants to preserve and better then.
He meets a woman, a careful woman who is also prude with money, respectful towards men and generally estatic with no fear around his partner, does not have vulgar tongue and wants to pair with men with her contrast in characters such as peace,love, empathy.
The family happens and the man's father and mother grow elderly and woman father's and mother grow elderly, and soon they would have to depend on their son and daughter and grandson and granddaughter, however so they are minimal in their wishes and aren't a burden to them, having saved enough possession to do so.
Now what is it the fascist/conservative/socialist have done here:-
A man is no longer his own but the states milking device for whatever misallocation project they think is going to serve as a better ego bumping craft for the leader
A woman is not any human at all, just a baby making machine that sees fear,violence,vulgarity, domination in the sphere of men everyday
A baby is born in a arrangement of man that is not interested at all in excelling but bootlicking his superiors everyday and a woman who of course is going to recieve a monthly payments check for doing a extraordinary event of raising her own children in which of course certain amount is going to redeemed in her personal makeup products and so on
Violence, vulgarity and domination is the nature of the household as the woman distrust the man in everything he does and the man doesn't possess any interest in the wifes world and thought
As the child grows up the man tells him the state will take care of its best if he passes the national civil exam, the national engineering clats, the national CTE and if he fails he has failed the entire household
The child grows upto be man and is a milking device for birth rate of the aforementioned couple, he doesn't care about moneys value since the state can rob a rich man to give him any day
He doesn't read the bible but surely he talks everyday about the lord as he of course in increasing vulgarity towards any thing he sees inferior
Disabled,ugly,short etc.
His father and mother having grown up now leech his money through the state and lay claim through state courts to take care of them accordingly.
Resentment between young and the old is ever present
Old takes money from the young and the young curses him and squanders his own wealth for short term pleasure.
The difference between organic and inorganic is vast and it cannot happen through force
The monstrosity has to go and we need to be in control of our own community
1).remember Fdr closed from 25 to 14% in so period of ww2 during creation of wartime machine but before it happened there was a large spike of unemployment at 1936 or so that was called the Roosevelt recession at 19%
this is generally agreed upon nowadays that rather than relieve the economy his economic policy called the new deal actively made it worse now to make it happen Roosevelt created millions of public jobs to make this rate go down.
This should not be in consideration with private job creation as all public jobs are inherently inherently a leech of private jobs. So there is many many things wrong with how FDR made it happen.
2).Obama bail out unemployment reduction
Overall inferior to reagan in many ways because as economist warned obama will try to reuse FDR tactics to alleviate problem
$831B ARRA stimulus, auto bailouts, Dodd-Frank with regulations increase
This resulted directly in following comparisons- Reagan 10% to 4% happened in 38 months, for obama it took 60 or more months. Reagan overall monthly job gain 185000 , for obama 150000, for reagan average growth 3.8% for obama 2.4%, labor participation for obama fell from 65% to 62%, that's about 2 million or so people leaving for “disability” or so, for reagan it rose to 67%. Contrary to our geniuses there was manufacturing gain at 1.2 million in reagan ,for obama 7.2 million net jobs added by the end but most were “self-employed”
real mediam income increase was 12% in reagan and 5% in obama but Obama didn't cut tax he rose taxes from c tax of 33% to 35% and top rate tax from 35% to 39%
Overall his methods were designed to anhillate basically any scale whatsoever
As for stimulus, it is generally agreed upon that stimulus only makes active problem prolonged.
With respect to the 1937-38 recession the issue was Fed decided the 4% consumer price inflation was so high they needed to throw the economy into recession. And Roosevelt who finally heeded conservative calls to stop all that deficit spending (the peak years you note were equal the average value under Reagan). So they raised taxes and cut spending, which is what conservatives are always calling for (when Democrats are in office). Unsurprisingly, the economy went into recession.
The rest is a list of things conservatives do not like about how Roosevelt managed economic policy. Well, no kidding, conservatives didn’t refer to FDR as “that man” for nothing.
From my point of view, the huge increases in wages were a good thing for the working people who got them. They certainly seemed to think so granting the Democrats a big victory in 1934, when normally the president’s party would lose seats. And given that the price level actually fell from the expansion peak on 1929 to the one in 1937, concern about inflation when unemployment was still 11% was out of line IMO. They should have just kept the expansion going and not worry about deficits (Reagan didn’t). At the rate unemployment was dropping (3.5%/year), another 18-24 months would have gotten unemployment down to 4-5% where it would be inflation-generating, in which case the Fed would have to tighten. The recession would have been delayed by two years, and unemployment rise from a lower starting point.
1) remember Fdr closed from 25 to 14% in so period of ww2 during creation of wartime machine but before it happened there was a large spike of unemployment at 1936 or so that was called the Roosevelt recession at 19%”
The economy went into recession in August 1929. The recession ended in March 1933. The following expansion lasted to May 1937. During this expansion unemployment went from 25.5% to 11.0%. The economy then went into recession, which ended in June 1938, at which point unemployment reached 19.6%. This is the 19% you are recalling. It occurred in 1938, at the bottom of the second business cycle. I was talking about the business cycle that FDR inherited. This second business cycle expansion ended in February 1945. It is the one that includes WW II and saw unemployment get down to 1% in fall 1944.
“2).Obama bail out unemployment reduction. This resulted directly in following comparisons- Reagan 10% to 4% happened in 38 months,”
For Reagan the figures are 10.8% in November 1982 to 5.0% in March 1989, which happened over 76 months. Unemployment never got to 4%.
For Obama the figures are 10.0% in October 2009 to 3.5% in September 2019, which happened over 119 months.
Reagan saw a faster rate of unemployment decline (0.91%/year) than Obama (0.66%/year) but the decline ended at a higher level. The reason why is that 5% unemployment was too low and was generating inflation. So, the Fed hiked interest rates which led to recession the following year. Reagan was dealing with the remnants of the high-growth, but inflation-prone postwar economy.
By the time Obama was president that economy had long been replaced by the modern slower-growing, and less inflation-prone economy. As a result, the expansions last a very long time and very low levels of unemployment can be achieved, but it takes a long time to get there.
“The economy went into recession in August 1929. The recession ended in March 1933. The following expansion lasted to May 1937. During this expansion unemployment went from 25.5% to 11.0%. The economy then went into recession, which ended in June 1938, at which point unemployment reached 19.6%. This is the 19% you are recalling. It occurred in 1938, at the bottom of the second business cycle. I was talking about the business cycle that FDR inherited. This second business cycle expansion ended in February 1945. It is the one that includes WW II and saw unemployment get down to 1% in fall 1944.”
It's very important to note and prove the fact that FDR policy was direct reason behind the recession of 1938 and any employment generated through a war economy cannot count as a proper unemployment reduction at all
Here's how it happened
March 1933, the jobless rate was 24.9 percent, a record in American history. Real GDP had declined almost 30 percent from its level in 1929, and private fixed investment had been reduced by over two-thirds. Roosevelt's first hundred days were a flurry of emergency action. The Civilian Conservation Corps signed up its first 250,000 young men during July; the Public Works Administration started pouring billions into highways, bridges, and dams; and the National Industrial Recovery Act, signed in June, authorized the right of industries to set up cartels under government supervision as a trade-off for shorter hours and better pay. The short-term consequence was apparent: by December of 1933, the CCC alone had employed 300,000 men planting trees and constructing trails, and the economy expanded 10.8 percent in 1934—the best one-year recovery of the entire Depression period.But beneath the surface, the recovery was fragile. The NIRA's industrial codes inflated wages and prices at a rate much quicker than productivity could support. Manufacturing wages rose 20 percent in the first year of the program, while output rose only 15 percent. Firms operating under the codes were forbidden from cutting prices to gain market share, creating what economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian later called a “cartelized” economy. By 1934, private investment remained 65 percent below its 1929 level, and the capital stock was depreciating faster than it was being replaced. The government was employing millions—WPA rolls would go on to top out at 3.2 million—but private business was not.The year 1935 saw two fateful bills that would plague the recovery for the remainder of the decade. In May, the Supreme Court ruled the NIRA unconstitutional in the Schechter Poultry case, toppling the cartel system but bequeathing a legacy of increased labor costs. Two months afterward, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, popularly known as the Wagner Act, which ensured employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. Membership in the unions grew from 3 million in 1935 to almost 9 million in 1940. Strikes, which had been exceptional in the early thirties, increased six times between 1936 and 1937. Real weekly wages in manufacturing increased by another 25 percent between 1935 and 1937, despite the slowdown of productivity growth. Employers, both having to pay higher wages and threatened with the possibility of abrupt work stoppages, delayed plant expansions and postponed new hiring.In the meantime, Roosevelt's fiscal policy was sending conflicting signals. Federal deficits were 4 percent of GDP on average from 1934 to 1936—big by peacetime standards but minuscule compared with what lay ahead. Much of the spending was directed through relief agencies instead of permanent public works. By 1936, the WPA had a job for one in every twelve American workers, but they were make-work: raking leaves, painting murals, and constructing roads that went nowhere. Private capital, frightened by FDR's periodic anti-business rhetoric—"I welcome their hatred," he had declared of the "economic royalists"—remained on strike. Total factor productivity, a measure of the efficiency with which capital and labor were being combined, scarcely moved between 1933 and 1936. The watershed year was 1936, a year of electoral victory and policy overconfidence. Roosevelt was re-elected in a landslide, winning every state except Maine and Vermont. With newfound confidence, he proclaimed the Depression "over" and started making plans for a return to budgetary orthodoxy. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, frightened by a 6 percent increase in wholesale prices and a surge in excess reserves in the banking system, chose to tighten monetary conditions. In three steps, from August 1936 to May 1937, the Fed increased reserve requirements from 13 percent to 26 percent, then to 35 percent, and finally to 52.5 percent. The impact was swift and harsh: banks, now obliged to hold twice as much cash against deposits, cut back on lending. Money supply dipped 4 percent in the latter half of 1937, the steepest decline since 1933.Fiscal policy was soon to follow. In June 1936, Congress enacted the Revenue Act, which contained the Undistributed Profits Tax—a tax of up to 27 percent on corporate profits not distributed as dividends. The tax was meant to compel corporations to pay out cash to stockholders, but it merely caused the reverse: corporations piled up profits so they wouldn't be penalized, and dividend payments declined dramatically. Then on January 1, 1937, the Social Security payroll tax went into effect—1 percent paid by workers and 1 percent by employers on the first $3,000 of wages. $2 billion was drained from consumer purchases overnight, 1.5 percent of GDP.In the next came spending reductions. Believing that the budget should be balanced, Roosevelt instructed WPA and PWA expenditures to be cut 30 percent for fiscal 1938. By June 1937, 1.1 million federal relief workers had been dismissed. Construction contracts, which reached a peak of $400 million a month in mid-1936, dropped to $150 million by the close of 1937. The inventory cycle became vicious: retailers, anticipating sales to weaken, reduced orders; manufacturers, confronted with declining demand, cut production. Industrial production,, which had increased every month from March 1933 through July 1937, declined 11 percent in August alone.The stock market recognized the danger first. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed as high as 194 in March 1937 and then entered a nauseating decline. It dropped below 120 by October—a 38 percent decline in seven months. Bank loans tightened, and commodity prices plummeted: wheat dropped from $1.40 a bushel in February to 90 cents by June. The recession began in earnest in August 1937, as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research, but the damage mounted in the fall. Real GDP, having expanded 5.1 percent in the first six months of the year, contracted at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter. Unemployment, which had dipped to 14.3 percent in the spring, jumped back to over 17 percent at Christmas.
Winter 1937–38 was pitiless. Factory production dropped another 18 percent during the last quarter of the year. Steel mills, running at 80 percent in early 1937, were down to 20 percent by February 1938. Car production plummeted from 450,000 units a month to below 150,000. Unemployment hit 19 percent in May 1938, the highest since 1935. Real GDP hit bottom in the second quarter of 1938, down 10.5 percent from the 1937 peak and still 20 percent under 1929 level. It was not until then that Roosevelt changed direction. In April 1938, he requested Congress to appropriate $3.75 billion in new expenditures—almost half the federal budget—and the Fed started easing reserve requirements. The WPA reemployed 2 million workers by the close of the year. The economy stabilized during the summer of 1938 and embarked on a moderate recovery, but the harm had already been done. Private investment never regained pre-Depression levels until the war. The Roosevelt Recession had demonstrated that a recovery based upon government payrolls and cartelized markets could be taken away the moment the supports were withdrawn.
Now with Obama it can be said due tyler cowen theory that once a economy has reached a very bloated size growth is not very substantial. However that remains just a theory but what is not a theory is and it can't be erased from a public mind view that every thing about his intervention was and has been proven to be fraudulent.
Inheriting a financial crisis triggered by a –740,000 monthly job hemorrhage in Q1 2009. The unemployment rate hit 10.0 % in October 2009—two full points above the 8 % ceiling promised in the Romer-Bernstein memo of January 9, 2009. That memo, relying on a multiplier of 1.57 for government spending, projected that the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) would keep unemployment below 8 % and return it to 5.5 % by 2012. However unemployment did not fall below 8 % until September 2012—four years late—and never reached 5.5 % during Obama’s tenure.The stimulus itself was $288 billion in tax cuts (mostly one-time checks), $224 billion in transfers to states and individuals, and $274 billion in direct spending. Only 6 % was disbursed in FY 2009; the bulk arrived after the recession had already ended (June 2009). The Congressional Budget Office later estimated the actual multiplier at 0.5–0.9, not 1.57. Romer herself admitted in 2011 that the administration “did not realize how severe the shock was.”
With the recession later over, the administration pivoted to structural reform rather called Dodd frank act which created 243 new rule-makings and 67 studies. Community banks responsible for 40 % of small-business lending faced compliance costs that rose 20–30 %. The Volcker Rule and Basel III capital hikes forced deleveraging at the worst possible moment. The Federal Register hit 81,405 pages in 2010, the highest ever.bank lending to small firms fell 18 % from 2008 to 2010 (FDIC Call Reports). Business start-ups, which normally surge in recoveries, dropped to a 30-year low (Kauffman Index). Real private fixed investment remained 17 % below its 2007 peak at year-end.
This of course with the fact we know now that Dodd frank did fail to do anything with big bank crisis of course making it longer term waste of all utilities
Now comes the direct reason behind unemployment rate being so drastically bad
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (March 2010) phasing in employer mandates in 2011. Firms with 50+ full-time employees faced penalties for non-coverage; the 29-hour workweek loophole was born. The Bureau of Labor Statistics later reported that 94 % of net job growth from 2010 to 2016 was part-time or self-employed—a structural shift never seen in prior recoveries.Meanwhile, the 2011 Budget Control Act and the expiration of the 2 % payroll-tax holiday imposed a $120 billion fiscal drag in calendar 2012. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this austerity shaved 1.0–1.5 percentage points off 2012 growth. GDP growth slowed to 1.6 %—the weakest non-recession year since 1949.
This was also mixed with other such proposal
When the Federal Reserve’s QE2 had ended in June 2011; QE3 (open-ended) began in September 2012, the transmission mechanism was broken excess reserves ballooned to $1.5 trillion while bank loans to businesses grew only 2 % annually. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index averaged 92 in 2012—ten points below the pre-crisis norm. Uncertainty over tax rates (Bush cuts expiring) and ACA implementation froze hiring.
Now laughably the sequester (March 2013) cut discretionary spending by $85 billion annually. Keynesians predicted catastrophe for economy however GDP grew 2.2 %. The Fed’s taper announcement (May 2013) triggered a bond-market selloff, but long-term rates rose only 100 bps—hardly the apocalypse forecast.Energy revolution (fracking) added 1.2 million jobs and $300 billion in GDP—entirely despite, not because of, federal policy. EPA regulations on coal plants and the Keystone XL rejection signaled hostility to carbon-intensive investment.
In 2014 The ACA employer mandate finally kicked in (delayed twice), pushing part-time employment to 19 % of the workforce—a post-war high.Real median household income remained $4,000 below its 2007 level The U-6 underemployment rate lingered at 12 %—double the pre-crisis norm.
2015: The Strongest Year—Still Under 3 %GDP grew 2.9 %—the best of the Obama era—driven by consumer spending on falling oil prices and auto sales. Yet business fixed investment fell 0.5 %—the first annual decline outside recession since 2009.
2016 The Final Year of Sub-3 % Growth gdp averaged 1.6 % the weakest election-year growth since 1948. Labor-force participation hit 62.8 %,3 points below 2008. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio never recovered to its 2007 level.Regulatory output of course peaked the Federal Register has reached 95,894 pages. The Waters of the United States rule, Overtime Rule, and Fiduciary Rule added $20 billion in annual compliance costs.
It also includes the following facts the regulations failed all around- Dodd frank act was supposed to repeal and destroy the underlying cause of 2008 financial crisis.
This is very important to mention as our politician like to bark that a renewed crisis in 2023 was due to a "rollback" of Dodd-frank act
Let's look into that claim-
first Trump administration signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Economic Growth Act). But that law did not “gut” Dodd-Frank. In fact, it didn’t repeal one single title (out of 16) of Dodd-Frank. Objectively, it’s difficult to even say that the Economic Growth Act “rolled back” any of Dodd-Frank.
The quick version of what happened starts with Dodd-Frank’s requirement to impose “enhanced” regulations for bank holding companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Few seem to recall, but Section 165 of Dodd-Frank authorized the Fed to implement enhanced standards in a tailored fashion based on specific risks for specific companies. Under certain conditions, Dodd-Frank even authorized the Fed to establish an asset threshold above $50 billion.
So, what did the Economic Growth Act do? It essentially changed the threshold for the Fed’s enhanced supervision to $100 billion. It’s important to note, though, that the Economic Growth Act still left the Fed with the discretion to impose enhanced supervision on bank holding companies below the new $100 billion threshold. So, not such a radical change.
Regardless, the dirty little secret is that federal banking regulators didn’t really need Dodd-Frank to implement higher capital and liquidity ratios. In fact, federal regulators started stress tests before the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law.
There are many problems with the existing bank capital regime and with how the Biden administration arbitrarily tried to implement more burdensome capital rules, but those problems go well beyond Dodd-Frank. Most of that capital framework reflects federal regulators’ decision to implement the Basel III framework, which has roots dating back to (at least) the 1980s.
Other Major Dodd-Frank Provisions
Aside from heightened capital standards, two of the main features of Dodd-Frank were the creation of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA). Title I of Dodd-Frank created the FSOC, a body of regulators charged with identifying risks to the financial stability of the United States and preventing the expectation of bailouts. The OLA, created by Title II of Dodd-Frank, was supposed to resolve large financial institutions in the event of their failure.
As we now know, the FSOC completely missed the 2023 banking turmoil, and the OLA has yet to be used. So much for the main pillars of Dodd-Frank. (By the way, Title XI of Dodd-Frank was also supposed to help end Fed or FDIC bailouts. As the 2023 banking crisis proved, Title XI merely formalized the type of collaborative bailout process between federal officials that was used during the 2008 crisis.)
Title VII was one of the other major Dodd-Frank changes. Title VII imposed a requirement to “clear” more over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives through central counterparties (CCPs). Aside from whether Title VII addressed the main causes of the 2008 financial crisis—it did not—it’s difficult to call Title VII a success.
Prior to the crisis, virtually all the counterparties using OTC derivatives were large banks that negotiated their own terms. If federal banking regulators truly needed more insight into those derivatives, they didn’t need any additional authority to get it. And if they wanted to implement higher capital requirements (or liquidity or even margin requirements) for those derivatives, they could have. They were already considered in banks’ capital requirements.
Simply put, Title VII did not reduce the overall risk from these derivatives; it merely concentrated that risk in the CCPs. (It’s also worth noting that the clearing requirement was the reason the Fed urged Congress to include Title VIII in Dodd-Frank, so that the CCPs would be plugged into the Fed in the event of a failure.)
The last major component of Dodd-Frank is the infamous Title X, the one that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).it was not necessary to create a new government agency for consumer protection. Multiple federal agencies, as well as state agencies, were already carrying out that function. To create the CFPB, Title X consolidated most of the federal consumer protection statutes under the Bureau, but there was no reason it couldn’t have consolidated them under, just for example, the Federal Trade Commission. As for the new “abusive” standard of consumer protection, Dodd-Frank didn’t bother to define it. (Neither has the Bureau.)
The CFPB has been controversial from the beginning, partly because it was created with such an odd “independent” structure. One of the Bureau’s first significant acts was to go against the long-standing interpretation of the federal statute that governed real estate closings. It then retroactively applied its new interpretation and sued a mortgage company for more than $100 million, a lawsuit that ultimately made it easier for a US president to remove a CFPB director.
Controversial structure aside, some folks believe that creating the CFPB addressed the so-called predatory lending practices that caused the 2008 financial crisis. But there are a few problems with that story. First, it defies reason to think that all the borrowers who defaulted on their mortgages in 2008 were simply tricked into buying a home, not realizing they would have to make monthly payments of a certain amount.
Second, even if one believes this view, the supposed fix in Dodd-Frank was to require lenders to meet an ability to repay standard (enforced by the CFPB). But that standard was only an expansion of lending restrictions first implemented by the 1994 Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). So, again, the idea that Dodd-Frank (or the creation of the CFPB) was a necessary fix rests on shaky ground.
Some folks hold a more subtle version of this so-called predatory lending view. In this telling, the real problem was that lenders failed to explain to borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that their interest rates and mortgage payments might increase. Research has shown, however, that fixed rate mortgages (FRMs) showed just as many signs of distress as did ARMs. Regardless, Dodd-Frank did not outlaw ARMs, and it is undeniable that lenders had to disclose details of those mortgages prior to the 2008 crisis.
Finally, evidence of fraud in the mortgage market prior to the crisis is sparse and most often fails to support widespread consumer-facing fraud of the type prevalent in the predatory lending story. Instead, it shows that lenders (in some cases) ran afoul of their responsibilities to accurately document consumer information for institutional investors purchasing mortgages. For instance, as this US Housing and Urban Development report states, several studies show that “the vast majority of fraud involves misrepresentation of information on loan applications related to income, employment, or occupancy of the home by the borrower.” That’s a problem for the pro-Dodd-Frank camp for several reasons, but mainly because this type of fraud was already illegal prior to the 2008 crisis.
There are many other small provisions of Dodd-Frank that have virtually nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Most people have likely never heard of these provisions, such as Title IX’s securities lending reporting or self-regulatory organization fee filing provisions. These items likely mean a great deal to several financial practitioners, but that makes it very difficult for others to judge whether these provisions were even necessary. Arguably, many of these provisions created a regulatory mess where none previously existed.
This is why it’s a bad practice to discuss things that have no clear definition. Since “neoliberalism” is just a kind of catch all for things economic nationalists tend to dislike, why should be expect it to have a consistent effect one way or another?
If you or Richard were to ask a better defined question, like “what is the relationship between tariff barriers and GDP growth” or “what is the effect of capital controls on long-term economic development” you’d get a better answer
The truth is this: finance wants neo-liberalism. Think of finance like the circulatory system in your body. The point of the circulatory system is to send blood to tissues so that you maintain homeostasis. The circulatory system is not in and of itself the “main attraction” if you will.
All of the Western nations effectively allowed their financial systems to make themselves the main attraction. But what is a financial system that feeds itself building up masses and feeding them while starving the actual economy (manufacturing, raw materials, essential services)? A cancer.
If one cannot make this distinction, they will always shill for some imaginary market answer which is really just the financial interests leveraging society to rent seek.
But at the end of the day no one works for money. They work for the things money buys. If finance chokes that production, society suffers
I’m sorry but you’re the one cherry picking data. The Russian economy did not shrink by 45 percent. Russia was one part of the Soviet Union , which collapsed between the years you mentioned. Comparing the GDP of Russia and the separate entity the Soviet Union is nonsensical. When an empire breaks apart GDP will be lost , just like a chunk of it’s population was lost.
Ukraine hardly underwent intense “shock therapy. Most state owned enterprises remained state owned throughout the 90’s.
Of course, like all good cherry pickers why ignore East Germany? Poland, the Baltics, Czech Republic etc ?
These long rebuttals are more boring now that we have chatgpt. It’s like authors just go through, paragraph by paragraph, and seek rebuttals for each claim made by the original author, complete with citations and everything. Then they do a lot of editorial massaging to bring it in line with their voice. The original author has the option to do the same thing. I love that we all have these intellectual superpowers now, the equivalent of an entire research team at our disposal, but it does take some of the joy out of reading arguments.
It was quite different with Greece. They lied about fulfilling rules of Maastricht, joined EU monetary union, got cheap debt and with irresponsible left wing policies drove their own country to bankruptcy.
Very well said! It's true, Banania likes to rely on cherry-picking, strawmanning, and misleading comparisons, as well as reverse psychology, false dichotomy, and ad hominems; his articles are riddled with fallacies. Ultimately, I think he wants to climb the career ladder as a policy wonk and join the managerial elites -- thus, he defends their parasitism, since he wants in on the grift.
Also, his fag ass banned me from commenting, either because of a random critique here & there, or maybe because in his Greenland article, I said that if you think the slightly thicc girls in furry bikinis are fat, you're literally gay (a statement I stand behind).
So, I hope you don't mind if I go off on a tangent and post my critique of another, more recent Banania piece on the market here, given that he's shook of my commentary, and this is a convenient space:
"The last paragraph presents a false dichotomy between DEI for women and banning them from the workforce entirely. It also attempts reverse psychology, accusing the author of "social engineering", when the article itself rejects the claim that women are dominating by merit, and asserts that it's the Great Feminization which is by top-down social engineering. She simply says we need to take the thumb off the scale, which would address these issues.
Also, you bring up Rogan, Trump & Putin as if these were bogeymen, and yet they are all strongly approved by market forces, which contradicts your thesis. It seems you want rule by fiat after all, just as long as its in your favor."
I think Richard is some kind of natural contrarian. (I know because I am one myself.) He's spent so much time on RW social media he begins to think the whole world is RW social media, so now his contrariness kicks in and next thing you know he's sounding like a teabagged David Brooks to "own the RW". I don't think he's stupid, he's just reacting to what he sees online and feels compelled to countersignal. If X suddenly became the Twitter of 2020 then Richard would get based again.
That said, I don't trust people that have been redpilled but then find their way back to liberalism. I don't know how that is possible unless they've been given donor bucks, which is possible with Richard.
I feel like Banania wrote that bullshit piece on purpose so someone like Keith would knock it down easy peasy.
Hanania got paid 700k by an anonymous donor, now he goes batshit crazy on praising Indians. He also likes race mixing with Oriental women, which would further explain his fondness of neoliberalism globalization.
Is Oriental still in use?
i prefer it to East Asian, since oriental is only one word and more precise than East Asian/Asian in general
This is my theory on Hanania as well. Paradoxically, contrarian writers tend to be more susceptible to audience capture than other, more ideologically rigid types. I don't want to psychologize too much but I think Richard must have been bullied pretty hard in middle school.
I was born in Barking. Today it looks something between Karachi and Mogadishu.
This isn't progress.
I don't think you need much more explanation for Hanania than that racism and antisemitism was how you trolled back in 2010s and saying neoliberal globalism has no competition, Fukuyama was right, etc, is how you troll in 2025.
This isnt exactly an argument for how he's wrong. Even though i agree neoliberal globalism has no competition. Its not a good thing
Im confused at keith calling neoliberals leftist, if anything it’s rightoid movement nowadays at least. For shits sake I’ll stomach that , the problem is keith addressed the failures then gave a rather off base response. “nationalism” isn’t a real economic alternative. Unless you confront the rent extraction system, private control of credit, land, and debt, you’re just shifting the flag over the same extraction machine. The issue isn’t global vs. national, it’s productive vs. parasitic. Real reform means de-financializing housing, banking, and public goods, not relabeling them.
This is like when people say “bitcoin fixes this” and I’m like wait , what?! People are still too broke to even buy in general…so you are still endangered from frothy poors at end game
Where did I call them leftist?
Mistake reading the top, however the real argument is the nationalism question . We have “nationalist” now, Iran, North Korea, etc. they are pushed to outside bounds of the system - mostly by sanctions and the inability to fight against a NATO with virtually un limited funds. You have to answer the global reserve dollar question before nationalism (whatever economic system that comes from that , which isn’t stated) actually works. Which means i don’t think it’s practical - Adolf tried his best - and most people don’t even understand how it was done , so they champion “nationalism” but the answer is MEFO BILLS. BRICS is making strides but if they are still tide to BIS - they are still slaves
That's because you lack historical perspective. Liberalism by its very definition is leftist, and in fact was the original leftist movement. It's all built around rights discourse and ever expanding spheres of equality and liberty. Classical liberalism represents the 17th and 18th century version of the revolution, Orthodox Marxism represents the early 20th century phase, and intersectionality victim politics represent the latest phase of the revolution with trannies as the vanguard. An authentic right wing movement would need to champion pre-modern values. Everything else is just different shades of leftism fighting for the prominence.
disagree - both sides engage in it - it is inherently a sideless doctrine that includes both extremes. It’s market centric . “Do everything and anything”means do left and right. It isn’t classical liberalism which i agree is “left” due to supposed egalitarianism. Neo liberalism has nothing to do with egalitarianism
You are confusing neo liberalism (economic platform) - with the philosopy of liberalism.
The word you're looking for is capitalism. The economic expression of liberalism.
“Capitalism” encompasses all forms of free markets. So when people collapse neo-liberalism into “capitalism,” they erase the managerial theology
Neo-liberalism makes a market distinction of its intent within that fold.
Trying to branch them under the same umbrella doesn’t tell the story. This is exactly why it’s labeled “Neo” liberal. It is almost totalitarian in its reach. It prioritizes market discipline, privatization, capital mobility, and state policies that protect financial markets.
More like Richard Banania
When you gonna do collab with Keith? Half Jew + Pure Celt = Total Banania Destruction
Stick to nationalism politics, you're a midwit in economics at best
Richard hanania for all his ills is not halfway bad here as your copy paste is.
I will start with only reagan part because there is so much junk here:-
PART 1
"Federal debt as a percent of GDP almost doubled during Reagan’s time in office, as he embraced cutting tax revenue alongside a surge in military spending, and in nominal terms the national debt tripled due to his deficit spending."
Clearly work of some braindead economist who doesn't even differentiate between what a tax cut is vs a revenue cut is. Nearly no revenue was cut during the time periods of 1980 to 1988 as all the data from the federal real increase shows decent growth of 14% out pacing the real inflation
Meanwhile not even mentioning the tax cut was a nominal cut , nominal tax rates are never paid as exceptions are provided to the industry on subsidy and national direction.
The early real tax of Jimmy Carter was 30% and reagan 28% then later 23%
The actual fat bigger gain was the increase which is shown when tax receipts from the rich is mentioned which was some 18% to later on 25% of GNP.
The so called deregulation of reagan these idiot economist cry about about 24/7 is mere continuation of policy of deregulation by Jimmy Carter that caused the economic boom of 1980s
None of this of course is even close to actually explaining what caused the economic so called boom after the double dip recession(trash monetary policy continuation by Richard Nixon)of Jimmy Carter.
The reason was simple, a gentlemen from the federal reserve who's name is paul volcker a man who was ironically a carter apointment was the man who was overviewed by reagan who allowed interest rates to rise in double digits and move through turbulent time periods of high unemployment back to optimal inflation.
i won't even mention the 28% growth of reagan policies vs a similar recession during obama with pity 11.8% after 20 quarters.
"Obama’s economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and “stimulate” job growth. The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nation’s unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal government’s regulatory apparatus to harass the economy’s productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur. On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagan’s post-recession economy — an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent — did just that."
The truth about Reagans greatest work was simply learning what Jimmy Carter did right and leading forward
Here's what Jimmy Carter did in his presidency for some numb skull reagan deregulated everything-tard
according to economists writing for Regulation, the American railroad industry, which had been regulated since 1887:
By the 1970s, it was painfully obvious that rate regulation and associated inflexibilities had brought U.S. railroads to the brink of economic disaster.
The Staggers Act of 1980, endorsed by Carter, not only led to lower freight rates but also enabled the railroad industry to improve its capitalization, close unprofitable routes, and allow weaker railroads to merge with stronger ones. Declared Regulation:
The history of the U.S. railroad industry during the 30 years since the Staggers Act was signed is a story of enormous success. Productivity growth in the U.S. railroad sector has far outpaced the gains in the U.S. private domestic sector. The factors underlying this performance include pricing flexibility, economies of density achieved through line abandonments, industry consolidation, and the growth of long-haul coal and intermodal traffic.
Airline deregulation also was a major success. The architect of much of the deregulation efforts, Carter adviser Alfred Kahn, wrote:
Between 1976 and 1990 average yields per passenger mile—the average of the fares that passengers actually paid—declined 30 percent in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Average yields were declining in the decades before deregulation as well, thanks largely to the introduction of jets and jumbo jets. The best estimates, however, are that deregulated fares have been 10 to 18 percent lower, on average, than they would have been under the previous regulatory formulas. The savings to travelers have been in the range of $5 billion to $10 billion per year.
The Carter deregulation efforts even extended to the production of beer, making the modern craft beer industry possible:
When President Jimmy Carter signed a bill legalizing homebrewing in 1978, fewer than 100 breweries were operating in the United States. Two years ago, a study of the country’s beer scene found nine metropolitan areas with more than 100 active breweries.
This is just a retarded post hoc rationalization copy paste job. Reaganomics was the true impetus for the massive transfer of wealth from the average person to globalist elites that MAGA has now almost fully completed. That single factor alone has led to more familial breakdown and moral decay than any leftist Boogeyman - or retarded shit like troonery that was never a “left wing” issue until it was Astroturfed by a collection of AGP billionaires like “Jennifer” Pritzker, the Sacklers, or to a lesser extent wealth but less powerful Troons “in the arts” like the Wachowski's; every single one of them is a heterosexual MALE with high narcissistic traits. Quantico used to use these freaks to train recruits on basic profiling bc they offend (against women) so often. Shit even 69% of DEMOCRATIC voters describe themselves as “strongly opposed” to this nonsense but you’d never know that from the media, the Democratic Party, or right wing talking heads.
Bottom line: kneecapping the average American & sucking us all into a dreadful void isn't “living” but keep telling me the right is “based.”
I took a position and I must say what is true regardless of prevailing narrative,
If we were living in a perfectly efficient paradise with no scarcity misallocation, no controlled and managed interest rate and no intellectual property I wouldn't waste my time talking about reagonomics but the facts are clear, FDR intervention failed and created a broken window crisis that directly pushed him to be involved in ww2 and obama intervention failed to solve the causes and symptoms of banking crisis in addition to hampering development. If during carter-reagan administration-the growth was stable without additional baggages on energy,tech and finance industry then what is meaningfully a great result must be said to be what is
If the rich get rich as all inequality is a result of natural difference of man and this inequality is exaggerated and manipulated with intellectual property and regulations cartel then any attempts at reducing this inequality should be done in a way that un-natural deviation is reduced
In terms of politics:- Paleoconservatice>Jacksonian>madisonian>neoliberals>keynesians>socialist
If the three groups behind aren't present I will choose the neoliberals if not then keynesians
As far a 'family values' are concerned they are entirely cultural and have nothing to do with politics and are a seperate game from politics unless politics directly inhibit them such as in communism
Family values and culture may manifest into politics but they are not political first and foremost
However well fascist+natsoc may try to reverse the clock, they have failed to do say in any country they have presided
Chile has went from millitary hunta to democracy and it has become increasingly more progressive than most latin america countries today
So has spain who is filled to brim with communist it is unrecognizable, one wouldnt think a fascist catholic ran this country for 60-70 years or so
All family values and culture values are organic and it takes a century long time period to turn them to reality.
Those who like to brag about power and using the state police with courts to submit the population into thier ideals are running to be celebrities and be in fame/infamy, stroking their own ego- they want to be in Forbes top 100 historical leaders and preside over a personal millitary to satiate their inherent lust for power and respect.
These people by no means posses the ability to accelerate a truly organic process of coming together and forming a community, they want to be "heroes" that is laggards with short time horizon who didn't achieve anything worthwhile other than brutality
I posses no interest in the coming of these "strong man" to save the children, the women, the elderly and such
Neoliberals on the other hand are a window to gain what is lost- a direct control over a state, a family and away from controls many miles and states away.
Those who want us to be a "one big family" where some big inc technocracy will min/max output best scenario for our children are the enemies and I say it as such.
What is the story of our community:-
A man grows up under a careful two loving parents household who save,invest,prepare of him and he is taught by them values of honesty,bravery, intelligence respectfulness towards elderly,being soft spoken, helping the un-adva tange,the disabled and the ugly, he grows up taking from what his parents made and saves, is prude with money,alcohol and is not prone to addiction, violence,lust
He goes to religious ceremony, understands why his culture, his history and wants to preserve and better then.
He meets a woman, a careful woman who is also prude with money, respectful towards men and generally estatic with no fear around his partner, does not have vulgar tongue and wants to pair with men with her contrast in characters such as peace,love, empathy.
The family happens and the man's father and mother grow elderly and woman father's and mother grow elderly, and soon they would have to depend on their son and daughter and grandson and granddaughter, however so they are minimal in their wishes and aren't a burden to them, having saved enough possession to do so.
Now what is it the fascist/conservative/socialist have done here:-
A man is no longer his own but the states milking device for whatever misallocation project they think is going to serve as a better ego bumping craft for the leader
A woman is not any human at all, just a baby making machine that sees fear,violence,vulgarity, domination in the sphere of men everyday
A baby is born in a arrangement of man that is not interested at all in excelling but bootlicking his superiors everyday and a woman who of course is going to recieve a monthly payments check for doing a extraordinary event of raising her own children in which of course certain amount is going to redeemed in her personal makeup products and so on
Violence, vulgarity and domination is the nature of the household as the woman distrust the man in everything he does and the man doesn't possess any interest in the wifes world and thought
As the child grows up the man tells him the state will take care of its best if he passes the national civil exam, the national engineering clats, the national CTE and if he fails he has failed the entire household
The child grows upto be man and is a milking device for birth rate of the aforementioned couple, he doesn't care about moneys value since the state can rob a rich man to give him any day
He doesn't read the bible but surely he talks everyday about the lord as he of course in increasing vulgarity towards any thing he sees inferior
Disabled,ugly,short etc.
His father and mother having grown up now leech his money through the state and lay claim through state courts to take care of them accordingly.
Resentment between young and the old is ever present
Old takes money from the young and the young curses him and squanders his own wealth for short term pleasure.
The difference between organic and inorganic is vast and it cannot happen through force
The monstrosity has to go and we need to be in control of our own community
can you condense this into something that someone will actually read
Why would I it's pretty readable imo, just copy paste it yourself I don't feel like rewriting all this again
Nobody is reading this shit in all reality . It’s not even organized in any rational way. They are agreeing with the first sentence 😂
What do you mean, is it the PARTS that are written or this main comment, maybe I will reorganize it
What are you talking about? Reagan used stimulus. We have
FDR 25.5-->11 unemployment with 3.4% deficits
Reagan 10.8-->5.0 unemployment with 4.0% deficit
Obama 10.0-->3.5 unemployment with 5.7% deficit
Reagan's performance is unremarkable.
In terms of performance
1).remember Fdr closed from 25 to 14% in so period of ww2 during creation of wartime machine but before it happened there was a large spike of unemployment at 1936 or so that was called the Roosevelt recession at 19%
this is generally agreed upon nowadays that rather than relieve the economy his economic policy called the new deal actively made it worse now to make it happen Roosevelt created millions of public jobs to make this rate go down.
This should not be in consideration with private job creation as all public jobs are inherently inherently a leech of private jobs. So there is many many things wrong with how FDR made it happen.
2).Obama bail out unemployment reduction
Overall inferior to reagan in many ways because as economist warned obama will try to reuse FDR tactics to alleviate problem
$831B ARRA stimulus, auto bailouts, Dodd-Frank with regulations increase
This resulted directly in following comparisons- Reagan 10% to 4% happened in 38 months, for obama it took 60 or more months. Reagan overall monthly job gain 185000 , for obama 150000, for reagan average growth 3.8% for obama 2.4%, labor participation for obama fell from 65% to 62%, that's about 2 million or so people leaving for “disability” or so, for reagan it rose to 67%. Contrary to our geniuses there was manufacturing gain at 1.2 million in reagan ,for obama 7.2 million net jobs added by the end but most were “self-employed”
real mediam income increase was 12% in reagan and 5% in obama but Obama didn't cut tax he rose taxes from c tax of 33% to 35% and top rate tax from 35% to 39%
Overall his methods were designed to anhillate basically any scale whatsoever
As for stimulus, it is generally agreed upon that stimulus only makes active problem prolonged.
With respect to the 1937-38 recession the issue was Fed decided the 4% consumer price inflation was so high they needed to throw the economy into recession. And Roosevelt who finally heeded conservative calls to stop all that deficit spending (the peak years you note were equal the average value under Reagan). So they raised taxes and cut spending, which is what conservatives are always calling for (when Democrats are in office). Unsurprisingly, the economy went into recession.
The rest is a list of things conservatives do not like about how Roosevelt managed economic policy. Well, no kidding, conservatives didn’t refer to FDR as “that man” for nothing.
From my point of view, the huge increases in wages were a good thing for the working people who got them. They certainly seemed to think so granting the Democrats a big victory in 1934, when normally the president’s party would lose seats. And given that the price level actually fell from the expansion peak on 1929 to the one in 1937, concern about inflation when unemployment was still 11% was out of line IMO. They should have just kept the expansion going and not worry about deficits (Reagan didn’t). At the rate unemployment was dropping (3.5%/year), another 18-24 months would have gotten unemployment down to 4-5% where it would be inflation-generating, in which case the Fed would have to tighten. The recession would have been delayed by two years, and unemployment rise from a lower starting point.
“In terms of performance
1) remember Fdr closed from 25 to 14% in so period of ww2 during creation of wartime machine but before it happened there was a large spike of unemployment at 1936 or so that was called the Roosevelt recession at 19%”
The economy went into recession in August 1929. The recession ended in March 1933. The following expansion lasted to May 1937. During this expansion unemployment went from 25.5% to 11.0%. The economy then went into recession, which ended in June 1938, at which point unemployment reached 19.6%. This is the 19% you are recalling. It occurred in 1938, at the bottom of the second business cycle. I was talking about the business cycle that FDR inherited. This second business cycle expansion ended in February 1945. It is the one that includes WW II and saw unemployment get down to 1% in fall 1944.
https://www.nber.org/research/data/us-business-cycle-expansions-and-contractions
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0892AUSM156SNBR
“2).Obama bail out unemployment reduction. This resulted directly in following comparisons- Reagan 10% to 4% happened in 38 months,”
For Reagan the figures are 10.8% in November 1982 to 5.0% in March 1989, which happened over 76 months. Unemployment never got to 4%.
For Obama the figures are 10.0% in October 2009 to 3.5% in September 2019, which happened over 119 months.
Reagan saw a faster rate of unemployment decline (0.91%/year) than Obama (0.66%/year) but the decline ended at a higher level. The reason why is that 5% unemployment was too low and was generating inflation. So, the Fed hiked interest rates which led to recession the following year. Reagan was dealing with the remnants of the high-growth, but inflation-prone postwar economy.
By the time Obama was president that economy had long been replaced by the modern slower-growing, and less inflation-prone economy. As a result, the expansions last a very long time and very low levels of unemployment can be achieved, but it takes a long time to get there.
Oh yes let me clarify,
“The economy went into recession in August 1929. The recession ended in March 1933. The following expansion lasted to May 1937. During this expansion unemployment went from 25.5% to 11.0%. The economy then went into recession, which ended in June 1938, at which point unemployment reached 19.6%. This is the 19% you are recalling. It occurred in 1938, at the bottom of the second business cycle. I was talking about the business cycle that FDR inherited. This second business cycle expansion ended in February 1945. It is the one that includes WW II and saw unemployment get down to 1% in fall 1944.”
It's very important to note and prove the fact that FDR policy was direct reason behind the recession of 1938 and any employment generated through a war economy cannot count as a proper unemployment reduction at all
Here's how it happened
March 1933, the jobless rate was 24.9 percent, a record in American history. Real GDP had declined almost 30 percent from its level in 1929, and private fixed investment had been reduced by over two-thirds. Roosevelt's first hundred days were a flurry of emergency action. The Civilian Conservation Corps signed up its first 250,000 young men during July; the Public Works Administration started pouring billions into highways, bridges, and dams; and the National Industrial Recovery Act, signed in June, authorized the right of industries to set up cartels under government supervision as a trade-off for shorter hours and better pay. The short-term consequence was apparent: by December of 1933, the CCC alone had employed 300,000 men planting trees and constructing trails, and the economy expanded 10.8 percent in 1934—the best one-year recovery of the entire Depression period.But beneath the surface, the recovery was fragile. The NIRA's industrial codes inflated wages and prices at a rate much quicker than productivity could support. Manufacturing wages rose 20 percent in the first year of the program, while output rose only 15 percent. Firms operating under the codes were forbidden from cutting prices to gain market share, creating what economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian later called a “cartelized” economy. By 1934, private investment remained 65 percent below its 1929 level, and the capital stock was depreciating faster than it was being replaced. The government was employing millions—WPA rolls would go on to top out at 3.2 million—but private business was not.The year 1935 saw two fateful bills that would plague the recovery for the remainder of the decade. In May, the Supreme Court ruled the NIRA unconstitutional in the Schechter Poultry case, toppling the cartel system but bequeathing a legacy of increased labor costs. Two months afterward, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, popularly known as the Wagner Act, which ensured employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. Membership in the unions grew from 3 million in 1935 to almost 9 million in 1940. Strikes, which had been exceptional in the early thirties, increased six times between 1936 and 1937. Real weekly wages in manufacturing increased by another 25 percent between 1935 and 1937, despite the slowdown of productivity growth. Employers, both having to pay higher wages and threatened with the possibility of abrupt work stoppages, delayed plant expansions and postponed new hiring.In the meantime, Roosevelt's fiscal policy was sending conflicting signals. Federal deficits were 4 percent of GDP on average from 1934 to 1936—big by peacetime standards but minuscule compared with what lay ahead. Much of the spending was directed through relief agencies instead of permanent public works. By 1936, the WPA had a job for one in every twelve American workers, but they were make-work: raking leaves, painting murals, and constructing roads that went nowhere. Private capital, frightened by FDR's periodic anti-business rhetoric—"I welcome their hatred," he had declared of the "economic royalists"—remained on strike. Total factor productivity, a measure of the efficiency with which capital and labor were being combined, scarcely moved between 1933 and 1936. The watershed year was 1936, a year of electoral victory and policy overconfidence. Roosevelt was re-elected in a landslide, winning every state except Maine and Vermont. With newfound confidence, he proclaimed the Depression "over" and started making plans for a return to budgetary orthodoxy. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, frightened by a 6 percent increase in wholesale prices and a surge in excess reserves in the banking system, chose to tighten monetary conditions. In three steps, from August 1936 to May 1937, the Fed increased reserve requirements from 13 percent to 26 percent, then to 35 percent, and finally to 52.5 percent. The impact was swift and harsh: banks, now obliged to hold twice as much cash against deposits, cut back on lending. Money supply dipped 4 percent in the latter half of 1937, the steepest decline since 1933.Fiscal policy was soon to follow. In June 1936, Congress enacted the Revenue Act, which contained the Undistributed Profits Tax—a tax of up to 27 percent on corporate profits not distributed as dividends. The tax was meant to compel corporations to pay out cash to stockholders, but it merely caused the reverse: corporations piled up profits so they wouldn't be penalized, and dividend payments declined dramatically. Then on January 1, 1937, the Social Security payroll tax went into effect—1 percent paid by workers and 1 percent by employers on the first $3,000 of wages. $2 billion was drained from consumer purchases overnight, 1.5 percent of GDP.In the next came spending reductions. Believing that the budget should be balanced, Roosevelt instructed WPA and PWA expenditures to be cut 30 percent for fiscal 1938. By June 1937, 1.1 million federal relief workers had been dismissed. Construction contracts, which reached a peak of $400 million a month in mid-1936, dropped to $150 million by the close of 1937. The inventory cycle became vicious: retailers, anticipating sales to weaken, reduced orders; manufacturers, confronted with declining demand, cut production. Industrial production,, which had increased every month from March 1933 through July 1937, declined 11 percent in August alone.The stock market recognized the danger first. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed as high as 194 in March 1937 and then entered a nauseating decline. It dropped below 120 by October—a 38 percent decline in seven months. Bank loans tightened, and commodity prices plummeted: wheat dropped from $1.40 a bushel in February to 90 cents by June. The recession began in earnest in August 1937, as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research, but the damage mounted in the fall. Real GDP, having expanded 5.1 percent in the first six months of the year, contracted at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter. Unemployment, which had dipped to 14.3 percent in the spring, jumped back to over 17 percent at Christmas.
Winter 1937–38 was pitiless. Factory production dropped another 18 percent during the last quarter of the year. Steel mills, running at 80 percent in early 1937, were down to 20 percent by February 1938. Car production plummeted from 450,000 units a month to below 150,000. Unemployment hit 19 percent in May 1938, the highest since 1935. Real GDP hit bottom in the second quarter of 1938, down 10.5 percent from the 1937 peak and still 20 percent under 1929 level. It was not until then that Roosevelt changed direction. In April 1938, he requested Congress to appropriate $3.75 billion in new expenditures—almost half the federal budget—and the Fed started easing reserve requirements. The WPA reemployed 2 million workers by the close of the year. The economy stabilized during the summer of 1938 and embarked on a moderate recovery, but the harm had already been done. Private investment never regained pre-Depression levels until the war. The Roosevelt Recession had demonstrated that a recovery based upon government payrolls and cartelized markets could be taken away the moment the supports were withdrawn.
Now with Obama it can be said due tyler cowen theory that once a economy has reached a very bloated size growth is not very substantial. However that remains just a theory but what is not a theory is and it can't be erased from a public mind view that every thing about his intervention was and has been proven to be fraudulent.
Inheriting a financial crisis triggered by a –740,000 monthly job hemorrhage in Q1 2009. The unemployment rate hit 10.0 % in October 2009—two full points above the 8 % ceiling promised in the Romer-Bernstein memo of January 9, 2009. That memo, relying on a multiplier of 1.57 for government spending, projected that the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) would keep unemployment below 8 % and return it to 5.5 % by 2012. However unemployment did not fall below 8 % until September 2012—four years late—and never reached 5.5 % during Obama’s tenure.The stimulus itself was $288 billion in tax cuts (mostly one-time checks), $224 billion in transfers to states and individuals, and $274 billion in direct spending. Only 6 % was disbursed in FY 2009; the bulk arrived after the recession had already ended (June 2009). The Congressional Budget Office later estimated the actual multiplier at 0.5–0.9, not 1.57. Romer herself admitted in 2011 that the administration “did not realize how severe the shock was.”
With the recession later over, the administration pivoted to structural reform rather called Dodd frank act which created 243 new rule-makings and 67 studies. Community banks responsible for 40 % of small-business lending faced compliance costs that rose 20–30 %. The Volcker Rule and Basel III capital hikes forced deleveraging at the worst possible moment. The Federal Register hit 81,405 pages in 2010, the highest ever.bank lending to small firms fell 18 % from 2008 to 2010 (FDIC Call Reports). Business start-ups, which normally surge in recoveries, dropped to a 30-year low (Kauffman Index). Real private fixed investment remained 17 % below its 2007 peak at year-end.
This of course with the fact we know now that Dodd frank did fail to do anything with big bank crisis of course making it longer term waste of all utilities
Now comes the direct reason behind unemployment rate being so drastically bad
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (March 2010) phasing in employer mandates in 2011. Firms with 50+ full-time employees faced penalties for non-coverage; the 29-hour workweek loophole was born. The Bureau of Labor Statistics later reported that 94 % of net job growth from 2010 to 2016 was part-time or self-employed—a structural shift never seen in prior recoveries.Meanwhile, the 2011 Budget Control Act and the expiration of the 2 % payroll-tax holiday imposed a $120 billion fiscal drag in calendar 2012. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this austerity shaved 1.0–1.5 percentage points off 2012 growth. GDP growth slowed to 1.6 %—the weakest non-recession year since 1949.
This was also mixed with other such proposal
When the Federal Reserve’s QE2 had ended in June 2011; QE3 (open-ended) began in September 2012, the transmission mechanism was broken excess reserves ballooned to $1.5 trillion while bank loans to businesses grew only 2 % annually. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index averaged 92 in 2012—ten points below the pre-crisis norm. Uncertainty over tax rates (Bush cuts expiring) and ACA implementation froze hiring.
Now laughably the sequester (March 2013) cut discretionary spending by $85 billion annually. Keynesians predicted catastrophe for economy however GDP grew 2.2 %. The Fed’s taper announcement (May 2013) triggered a bond-market selloff, but long-term rates rose only 100 bps—hardly the apocalypse forecast.Energy revolution (fracking) added 1.2 million jobs and $300 billion in GDP—entirely despite, not because of, federal policy. EPA regulations on coal plants and the Keystone XL rejection signaled hostility to carbon-intensive investment.
In 2014 The ACA employer mandate finally kicked in (delayed twice), pushing part-time employment to 19 % of the workforce—a post-war high.Real median household income remained $4,000 below its 2007 level The U-6 underemployment rate lingered at 12 %—double the pre-crisis norm.
2015: The Strongest Year—Still Under 3 %GDP grew 2.9 %—the best of the Obama era—driven by consumer spending on falling oil prices and auto sales. Yet business fixed investment fell 0.5 %—the first annual decline outside recession since 2009.
2016 The Final Year of Sub-3 % Growth gdp averaged 1.6 % the weakest election-year growth since 1948. Labor-force participation hit 62.8 %,3 points below 2008. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio never recovered to its 2007 level.Regulatory output of course peaked the Federal Register has reached 95,894 pages. The Waters of the United States rule, Overtime Rule, and Fiduciary Rule added $20 billion in annual compliance costs.
It also includes the following facts the regulations failed all around- Dodd frank act was supposed to repeal and destroy the underlying cause of 2008 financial crisis.
This is very important to mention as our politician like to bark that a renewed crisis in 2023 was due to a "rollback" of Dodd-frank act
Let's look into that claim-
first Trump administration signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Economic Growth Act). But that law did not “gut” Dodd-Frank. In fact, it didn’t repeal one single title (out of 16) of Dodd-Frank. Objectively, it’s difficult to even say that the Economic Growth Act “rolled back” any of Dodd-Frank.
The quick version of what happened starts with Dodd-Frank’s requirement to impose “enhanced” regulations for bank holding companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Few seem to recall, but Section 165 of Dodd-Frank authorized the Fed to implement enhanced standards in a tailored fashion based on specific risks for specific companies. Under certain conditions, Dodd-Frank even authorized the Fed to establish an asset threshold above $50 billion.
So, what did the Economic Growth Act do? It essentially changed the threshold for the Fed’s enhanced supervision to $100 billion. It’s important to note, though, that the Economic Growth Act still left the Fed with the discretion to impose enhanced supervision on bank holding companies below the new $100 billion threshold. So, not such a radical change.
Regardless, the dirty little secret is that federal banking regulators didn’t really need Dodd-Frank to implement higher capital and liquidity ratios. In fact, federal regulators started stress tests before the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law.
There are many problems with the existing bank capital regime and with how the Biden administration arbitrarily tried to implement more burdensome capital rules, but those problems go well beyond Dodd-Frank. Most of that capital framework reflects federal regulators’ decision to implement the Basel III framework, which has roots dating back to (at least) the 1980s.
Other Major Dodd-Frank Provisions
Aside from heightened capital standards, two of the main features of Dodd-Frank were the creation of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA). Title I of Dodd-Frank created the FSOC, a body of regulators charged with identifying risks to the financial stability of the United States and preventing the expectation of bailouts. The OLA, created by Title II of Dodd-Frank, was supposed to resolve large financial institutions in the event of their failure.
As we now know, the FSOC completely missed the 2023 banking turmoil, and the OLA has yet to be used. So much for the main pillars of Dodd-Frank. (By the way, Title XI of Dodd-Frank was also supposed to help end Fed or FDIC bailouts. As the 2023 banking crisis proved, Title XI merely formalized the type of collaborative bailout process between federal officials that was used during the 2008 crisis.)
Title VII was one of the other major Dodd-Frank changes. Title VII imposed a requirement to “clear” more over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives through central counterparties (CCPs). Aside from whether Title VII addressed the main causes of the 2008 financial crisis—it did not—it’s difficult to call Title VII a success.
Prior to the crisis, virtually all the counterparties using OTC derivatives were large banks that negotiated their own terms. If federal banking regulators truly needed more insight into those derivatives, they didn’t need any additional authority to get it. And if they wanted to implement higher capital requirements (or liquidity or even margin requirements) for those derivatives, they could have. They were already considered in banks’ capital requirements.
Simply put, Title VII did not reduce the overall risk from these derivatives; it merely concentrated that risk in the CCPs. (It’s also worth noting that the clearing requirement was the reason the Fed urged Congress to include Title VIII in Dodd-Frank, so that the CCPs would be plugged into the Fed in the event of a failure.)
The last major component of Dodd-Frank is the infamous Title X, the one that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).it was not necessary to create a new government agency for consumer protection. Multiple federal agencies, as well as state agencies, were already carrying out that function. To create the CFPB, Title X consolidated most of the federal consumer protection statutes under the Bureau, but there was no reason it couldn’t have consolidated them under, just for example, the Federal Trade Commission. As for the new “abusive” standard of consumer protection, Dodd-Frank didn’t bother to define it. (Neither has the Bureau.)
The CFPB has been controversial from the beginning, partly because it was created with such an odd “independent” structure. One of the Bureau’s first significant acts was to go against the long-standing interpretation of the federal statute that governed real estate closings. It then retroactively applied its new interpretation and sued a mortgage company for more than $100 million, a lawsuit that ultimately made it easier for a US president to remove a CFPB director.
Controversial structure aside, some folks believe that creating the CFPB addressed the so-called predatory lending practices that caused the 2008 financial crisis. But there are a few problems with that story. First, it defies reason to think that all the borrowers who defaulted on their mortgages in 2008 were simply tricked into buying a home, not realizing they would have to make monthly payments of a certain amount.
Second, even if one believes this view, the supposed fix in Dodd-Frank was to require lenders to meet an ability to repay standard (enforced by the CFPB). But that standard was only an expansion of lending restrictions first implemented by the 1994 Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). So, again, the idea that Dodd-Frank (or the creation of the CFPB) was a necessary fix rests on shaky ground.
Some folks hold a more subtle version of this so-called predatory lending view. In this telling, the real problem was that lenders failed to explain to borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that their interest rates and mortgage payments might increase. Research has shown, however, that fixed rate mortgages (FRMs) showed just as many signs of distress as did ARMs. Regardless, Dodd-Frank did not outlaw ARMs, and it is undeniable that lenders had to disclose details of those mortgages prior to the 2008 crisis.
Finally, evidence of fraud in the mortgage market prior to the crisis is sparse and most often fails to support widespread consumer-facing fraud of the type prevalent in the predatory lending story. Instead, it shows that lenders (in some cases) ran afoul of their responsibilities to accurately document consumer information for institutional investors purchasing mortgages. For instance, as this US Housing and Urban Development report states, several studies show that “the vast majority of fraud involves misrepresentation of information on loan applications related to income, employment, or occupancy of the home by the borrower.” That’s a problem for the pro-Dodd-Frank camp for several reasons, but mainly because this type of fraud was already illegal prior to the 2008 crisis.
There are many other small provisions of Dodd-Frank that have virtually nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Most people have likely never heard of these provisions, such as Title IX’s securities lending reporting or self-regulatory organization fee filing provisions. These items likely mean a great deal to several financial practitioners, but that makes it very difficult for others to judge whether these provisions were even necessary. Arguably, many of these provisions created a regulatory mess where none previously existed.
You are using bad metrics period for “performance”
This is why it’s a bad practice to discuss things that have no clear definition. Since “neoliberalism” is just a kind of catch all for things economic nationalists tend to dislike, why should be expect it to have a consistent effect one way or another?
If you or Richard were to ask a better defined question, like “what is the relationship between tariff barriers and GDP growth” or “what is the effect of capital controls on long-term economic development” you’d get a better answer
Hananferatu is repellent.
The truth is this: finance wants neo-liberalism. Think of finance like the circulatory system in your body. The point of the circulatory system is to send blood to tissues so that you maintain homeostasis. The circulatory system is not in and of itself the “main attraction” if you will.
All of the Western nations effectively allowed their financial systems to make themselves the main attraction. But what is a financial system that feeds itself building up masses and feeding them while starving the actual economy (manufacturing, raw materials, essential services)? A cancer.
If one cannot make this distinction, they will always shill for some imaginary market answer which is really just the financial interests leveraging society to rent seek.
But at the end of the day no one works for money. They work for the things money buys. If finance chokes that production, society suffers
applause
I’m sorry but you’re the one cherry picking data. The Russian economy did not shrink by 45 percent. Russia was one part of the Soviet Union , which collapsed between the years you mentioned. Comparing the GDP of Russia and the separate entity the Soviet Union is nonsensical. When an empire breaks apart GDP will be lost , just like a chunk of it’s population was lost.
Ukraine hardly underwent intense “shock therapy. Most state owned enterprises remained state owned throughout the 90’s.
Of course, like all good cherry pickers why ignore East Germany? Poland, the Baltics, Czech Republic etc ?
All true but we shouldn’t be pursuing growth at all anymore
These long rebuttals are more boring now that we have chatgpt. It’s like authors just go through, paragraph by paragraph, and seek rebuttals for each claim made by the original author, complete with citations and everything. Then they do a lot of editorial massaging to bring it in line with their voice. The original author has the option to do the same thing. I love that we all have these intellectual superpowers now, the equivalent of an entire research team at our disposal, but it does take some of the joy out of reading arguments.
It was quite different with Greece. They lied about fulfilling rules of Maastricht, joined EU monetary union, got cheap debt and with irresponsible left wing policies drove their own country to bankruptcy.
Banania's USAID money ran out, so he's not even trying anymore
It’s much, much worse than that! https://wwitdr.substack.com/p/richard-hanania-aka-richard-hoste
Very well said! It's true, Banania likes to rely on cherry-picking, strawmanning, and misleading comparisons, as well as reverse psychology, false dichotomy, and ad hominems; his articles are riddled with fallacies. Ultimately, I think he wants to climb the career ladder as a policy wonk and join the managerial elites -- thus, he defends their parasitism, since he wants in on the grift.
Also, his fag ass banned me from commenting, either because of a random critique here & there, or maybe because in his Greenland article, I said that if you think the slightly thicc girls in furry bikinis are fat, you're literally gay (a statement I stand behind).
So, I hope you don't mind if I go off on a tangent and post my critique of another, more recent Banania piece on the market here, given that he's shook of my commentary, and this is a convenient space:
In response to https://www.richardhanania.com/p/believe-in-markets-not-men-or-women
"The last paragraph presents a false dichotomy between DEI for women and banning them from the workforce entirely. It also attempts reverse psychology, accusing the author of "social engineering", when the article itself rejects the claim that women are dominating by merit, and asserts that it's the Great Feminization which is by top-down social engineering. She simply says we need to take the thumb off the scale, which would address these issues.
Also, you bring up Rogan, Trump & Putin as if these were bogeymen, and yet they are all strongly approved by market forces, which contradicts your thesis. It seems you want rule by fiat after all, just as long as its in your favor."