Ralph welcomes Robert Reich (professor of Public Policy and former Secretary of Labor) to discuss his "Pledge to Make America Affordable Again." Then, Ralph speaks to Derek Shearer (former economic policy adviser and US Ambassador to Finland) about his recent work, "A Bold Economic Program for America."
Ralph and Robert are my heroes!!They speak my language at 79. The Democrats need this kind of drastic change they advise! Weirdly, Schumer and Jeffries, the Democrat leaders, are more closely allied to Trump than many even realize.
Can anyone name a democratic party platform and or plan to get high paying jobs back into America ? Can anyone name a democrat elected to the House of Representatives that does not talk all day long that the rich have all the money and has a Democrat ever talked to a rich Democratic doner and asked,,, how is their company going to provide a decent living wage to the people they employ ? . Has a Democrat leader ever presented a plan of how to exactly stop hedge funds from raising and lowering stocks with a I finance software programs that automatically skim billions of dollars each day into to the bank accounts of billionaires.,,? Leading to even more inflation.
Has a Democratic leader ever presented an exact day to day plan on how to stop the war with Iran ? Besides telling everyone giving money to Bibi is the problem.
Trump is not the problem, he lies, he cheats, every thing he does is in self-interest and the average Joe feels the democratic leadership has failed to take action with specific plans to right the ship .why not join trump ? they are tired of academic BS and do nothing democratic consultants,,,, Democrats should stop dreaming in their world of make believe ,,step up to the plate with a real plan or go under ,,,it's that simple and your choice, good luck America have a great day my friends.
Yes, that is too bad because the debt money system is an incredible source of unexamined power. It is also a source of unexamined crisis, and new designs for money systems offer possibilities for deep change, all mysterious and invisible to traditional progressives or leftists who have no idea of the potential of a money system that eliminates debt. With machinations to link Stablecoin to US Treasuries, mounting debt service, and Hormuz changing oil USD flows, the reserve currency status and the money system may finally become a flashpoint people have to notice.
Brett, the problem isn’t with the current monetary system itself. It is incredibly robust and capable of all kinds of progressive reforms, reserve status or not as the same principles apply to other countries with similar monetary systems such as the UK and Japan. The problem is that the monetary system is misunderstood by a large percentage of the global and domestic population, including the media and perhaps even a large number of politicians.
Corporate interests understand the monetary system quite well in modern times and have tilted fiscal policy in their favor (neoliberalism) because of this while the public is left powerless in part, in large part, because they don’t understand how to use the monetary system to their advantage in the same way. So, in that regard, you’re absolutely correct. There should be more discourse on the matter.
A good starting point is Stephanie Kelton’s 2020 book ‘The Deficit Myth,’ or the related 2023 documentary ‘Finding the Money’.
I’m very familiar with Kelton and company and we will have to agree to disagree. The debt based money system has got us to the brink of catastrophe. There are alternatives beyond the ones you mention, who foreground public debt alone, while backgrounding private debt that dwarfs public debt, drives enclosure, the productivity trap, constant growth, inequality, and ecological degradation. We need a first principles inquiry and a movement to bring that inquiry into the sunlight.
In terms of progressive reforms, Margrit Kennedy’s book ‘Occupy Money’ shows the inequality outcomes even in a highly reformed and regulated banking system like Germany’s with a large not for profit public banking sector. The wealth inequality is still evident.
As far as recommending a good starting point for you, since you recommended one for me, Jonathan McMillan ‘The End of Banking’ comes to mind. ‘Debt as Power’ by DiMuzio and Robbins, also.
Your position is strange to me. The 'debt based money system' seems to be pointing to something extra special, but all money in any form or configuration is a 'debt-based system'. The notion that the bulk of money is created by 'private banks' is misguided. Lots of money is created by banks (and it is government designated money of account), but these are 1:1 credit/debts of 'individual' borrowers (which must also be discharged by those individuals). And in a country like the US with a permanent foreign sector deficit, if the government wasn't providing the bulk of money supply through its normal conduit to maintain national income, the population would be actually bankrupt. The problem of banking is a legislation issue, not a monetary theory issue.
Brett, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive of each other. If there is such a thing as a pending crisis, it is a private debt crisis and not a public debt crisis. Expansion of the public debt, for public-benefiting purposes rather than for the benefit of private industry as is the case now, opens the door to many reforms which will lessen dependence on private banking and private debt. It is really all a matter of how fiscal policy is developed once there is an understanding how government can finance various progressive reforms. For example, education and medical debt can be eliminated overnight if Congress wishes to do so, and doing so will likely enhance productivity.
The problem with the likes of McMillan, which I am familiar with, is that it makes the assumption that money is created via the private banking system rather than from government. This is false, government spends money into existence. Government creates money by appropriating it via public spending and then it is created by the Treasury and Federal Reserve (other countries have a different central banking structure, but it all works the same). So, with that knowledge in hand, it actually makes reforming the banking system all that more achievable so as long as the public understands what is feasible just as corporate interests have understood this and use it to their advantage. That is, of course, where things fall apart.
There are plenty who agree with McMillan, like Werner (2014) or McLeay, Radia, and Thomas (2014). Kraemer, Jakelja, Brugger, & Nessel (2020) also. Like I said, we need a first principles inquiry and a movement to bring this inquiry into the sunlight. All these claims should be lined up in a row and examined against existing practices with their implications for justice and ecological impacts. There is way too much power and crisis unexamined. We can get clarity about exactly how the money is created and the implications for a society in debt to private interests. Ralph Nader is normally very good at these types of challenges. Too bad it’s not his wheelhouse. We’ll have to wait for someone else.
Articles like the McLeay et al. article stem from the post-GFC era when many economists, much less the general public, were confused about quantitative easing and what it really meant and whether it was necessary.
Now that time has passed, it is better to evaluate what happened during the Covid era to evaluate how governments, both in the US and elsewhere, spent to try to stabilize the economy. Did they turn to private banking?
No, obviously not. Rather, they passed appropriations, and then the money was created by spending it into the economy. Taxation does the inverse, it takes money out of the economy and cancels it which is contrary to the popular perception that government spending comes from recycled money. Taxation may help facilitate government spending by reducing the demand on finite real resources (inflation), but government spending does not come from taxation.
There's a lot more which can be said about the subject. The Kraemer et al. article you cited actually cites Randy Wray, and rightfully so as he's really the leading scholar in this area here in the US. The Ralph Nader Radio Hour would do well to have him on to discuss this subject.
As Ralph recently pointed out there is a difference between an agenda and a strategy. The agenda described in this episode has no strategy to achieve the agenda making it a wish list.
Robert Reich asked how can a politician stand up to the big money interests when you are taking their money and correctly answered that question by saying you can't.
If the politicians are taking big money they will be working for the big money interests.
Ralph asked do the politicians want the money or the votes.
Forcing the politicians to choose between the money or the votes is a strategy.
We can't do that if we vote for politicians that take big money. It gives the politicians no incentive to not take big money. It actually validates the politicians taking big money.
This is why we need a litmus test that says if a politician takes big money that politician will not get our votes.
You may have heard of this concept, Ralph- it's called democracy.
The question is how can citizens use their votes to without voting for a candidate that takes big money when there are no candidates on the ballot running small donor campaigns? Even the candidates running ON progressive agendas take big money so they will run FROM the progressive agenda if they are elected as they have done for forty plus years.
Citizens can cast a write in vote in 2026 to register a vote against the big money candidates on the ballot and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in 2028.
Just think if the 7.1 million people that did not vote in 2024 had instead cast a write in vote for this purpose. Many more citizens would be participating in making this demand in 2026 and we could have some small donor candidates on the ballot in 2026..
Let's start the revolution with a strategy instead of another book on agenda by forming a Union for Politics with a discussion of this strategy for Labor Day.
Just as workers can go on strike by withholding their labor to get better pay, working conditions, etc. citizens can go on strike by withholding their votes from politicians that take big money and casting a write in vote demanding small donor candidates.
We need you, Ralph, to help implement this bold plan instead of just offering the same old bull wish list.
If you want Ralph to have this discussion so you can learn more about this strategy so you can decide if you want to participate send an email to LaborDay@nader.org telling him you want him to participate in a discussion on this strategy at a Labor Day event.
Robert Reich has been a strong reformer and labor activist for many years. I wonder how much of the disasters of the Clinton administration were due to the Gingrich attacks and other Neanderthals who ended up undermining any real reform. Nafta, GATT, the telecom bill, the repeal of Glass Steagal were at least partly due to slimey people such as Larry Summers who worked to shut down the classics department at Harvard later. "Triangulation" seemed to be the Dick Morris plan, really what were the Clintons pushing for? Making policies to enrich themselves later? As Dean Blundell said, there are big financial reasons for Tillis and Cornyn to back AG Blanche: https://substack.com/@deanblundell/p-209938759
Steve, that was a nice jab about neoliberalism there in the discussion with Shearer. Klassik approves!
Klassik is far less approving of the narratives from Reich and Shearer though. Reich’s ten point plan is really just a rehashing of Democratic Party strategy from around the period of 1995-2010. Reich makes a bold claim in point 10 that everything above it will be ‘paid for’ by increased taxes.
Well, pay for what? Of all of those points, Reich only recommends two things which require any large government spending: point seven about healthcare and point eight about child/elder care. Even then, Reich’s recommendation for healthcare is hardly progressive, it only recommends allowing the public to buy Medicare coverage.
Then there is the most pressing point that the federal government is not constrained in their ability to spend. The US Dollar is not commodity-backed, the US can issue US Dollars as it pleases.
With that, we see how Reich’s agenda is really just a repeat of the neoliberal agenda implemented by Democrats in the period of 1995-2010. They promised something lightly progressive in that era, but then when they held power, they claimed their hands were tied due to the deficit and implemented social policy austerity. In the era after 2010, the Democrats shifted their policy to one of promising nothing and delivering nothing. Both the pre-2010 and post-2010 strategy opened the door to the likes of Trump.
On to Shearer et al.’s ‘A Bold Economic Program for America’. I read the entire 100+ page document. To me the most telling statements are on pages 86-87.
Prior to page 86, Shearer et al. describe the declining economic conditions for the public in the neoliberal era. There are many good points in there. However, starting on page 86 where Shearer et al. start discussing macroeconomic theory, things fall apart entirely and descend into the exact monetarism (and neoliberalism) which helped led to the exact degradation described above page 86.
While there is a lot which can be analyzed, Klassik will assess two pieces of balderdash from the report. First: “In 1972, President Nixon pressured the Fed to keep interest rates low, which helped his re-election but ushered in a period of increasing inflation” (p. 87).
Inflation in the 1970s was not primarily caused by low interest rates. To even say that is pure comedy. Inflation in the 1970s was primarily caused by rapidly increasing energy prices and shortages due to geopolitical conflict. To suggest otherwise would be equivalent to saying that increased gas prices in 2026 are caused by interest rates which are too low rather than the obvious cause of an ill-advised war disrupting the supply of oil in global markets. Nothing against Steve Skrovan, but even he cannot compose comedy with such hilarity to suggest that interest rates are the real reason for increased fuel prices now or in the 1970s!
Then the other monetarist point to analyize from the report: “Fiscal policy should use triggers to increase government spending when the unemployment rate is high, such as during the pandemic shutdowns, and run small surpluses when the unemployment rate is low, as was the case during the economic recovery from the pandemic” (p. 86).
So what Shearer et al. are suggesting here is that DOGE did not do enough to cut government expenditure! Say what?
There is absolutely no need for the federal government to ever run surpluses. Rather than this monetarist nonsense, the real economic strategy should be to eliminate unemployment entirely. This stabilizes the economy, and prices specifically, by smoothing the swings in prices and production caused by unemployment. When the federal government runs surpluses, it is putting the onus on the private sector to maintain economic growth which then leads to deregulation and increased focus on the finance sector rather than productive sectors of the economy...so a repeat of everything which Clinton and company implemented which led to the global financial crisis of 2008 and everything since.
Then there is the other obvious truth of monetarism, which Shearer et al. is promoting, is that unemployment is necessary to combat inflation. It is that exact ideology which led to the problems described above page 86 in his own report!
Klassik will grant Shearer the benefit of the doubt that he would like to see progressive policies implemented to benefit the American public, but Shearer’s entirely incompetent economic analysis is the exact reason why the American public continues to suffer setbacks regardless of which party is leading the federal government. Retreating to popular economic theories and ideology of the 1970s-2000s which have proven to be incorrect is not the path forward. The likes of Reich and Shearer need to be sent to retirement homes. They are, or should be, entirely irrelevant to modern Americans aside from studying how not to implement economic policy.
Good analysis and cuts right to the heart of the problem. The talking points about 'interest rates' and monetary policy being a driver of what are actually supply side shocks misleads and confuses discussion. The other point in the above reply to which readers here should pay attention is the position put forward by Shearer of 'running small surpluses' and tiny deficits as some sort of temporary remedy for regaining the sort of 'equilibrium' pseudo-economists imagine exists in 'normal times'.
Capitalism has failed completely. As a result of capitalism we are on the verge of destructive global warming. There are now at least 8.8 billion people on the planet. The Earth’s human population quadrupled in 79 yrs. Ten nations have nuclear weapons. This puts all life on Earth and human civilization at major risk of elimination.
Greed is considered a positive characteristic by many wealthy citizens who want even more (see the movie Wall Street). There are more multibillionaires than ever before. The U.S. has the most ultra-wealthy people of any country. World billionaires are richer and more numerous than ever. According to NPR and Forbes Global Media there were 140 billionaires in the World in 1987. Today there are 3028 of them.
These super-rich are sick with greed. They should be in institutions to deal with their psychological sickness. They shouldn’t be running countries and businesses. They may kill us all if they aren’t stopped. They have already done serious damage to the infrastructure of the United States.
The ultra-rich finance both sides in any war. War is very profitable for them. Corporations including General Motors, Ford and Standard Oil supplied resources to Nazi Germany during WWII. These facts are contained in the book “Trading With The Enemy” by John Higham. Another source is the documentary “JFK to 911 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick” at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNYh7OVqXUN_GZ8K8IF5VWdYCkvy7fGYt.
Meanwhile, many people in the U.S. are homeless and cannot afford medical care or higher education. According to the National Literacy Institute, 21 percent of adults in the U.S. were illiterate in 2024. Fifty four percent of adults have literacy below a 6th-grade level. Twenty percent are literate below the 5th-grade level. Readers can learn even more at https://www.nu.edu/blog/49-adult-literacy-statistics-and-facts/. A 2020 Gallup study found that the U.S. economy could be losing up to $2.2 trillion annually due to low adult literacy rates.
The U.S Government has not supported education nearly enough. A very important subject not taught in my high school was logic. That should be a required subject to graduate from high school. Logic teaches students to analyze and evaluate speeches, videos or writing by anyone with a commercial, political, religious or another agenda.
These skills are rare in the United States. That is why Trump and his MAGA supporters were able to use his lies and get him elected by many poorly educated citizens.
Another problem is that the “mainstream” media does not give citizens any important news that may criticize corporations and their major shareholders.
Failed completely? It has pulled more people out of poverty than communism/socialism ever did. Since 1990, the rate of hard poverty worldwide fell from 40% to today's 12%. Particularly in china and india, the results have been spectacular.
The 'but it's better than communism!' thing is superficial. Homelessnesses was a non-problem in the Soviet Union, now it's an epidemic. And also an epidemic in the rest of the world after +/- 50 years of revived 'market mechanisms'. Bringing capitalism to Russia did not pull 'more people out of poverty' it put more people into it. Whilst no-one can deny China has adopted market capitalism measures into its economic policy, this alone is not what has been behind the dramatic fall in poverty rates there. The government's proactive interventions (actively planning to prevent job clustering in urban areas; the 'dibao' income transfer programme; food security policy etc) are what make up the real difference. The US, as the most developed capitalist country on earth has a higher poverty rate and wealth gap, by World Bank and OECD measures, than Chile, Thailand, Kyrgyzstan(!). We could argue that 'it's because corruption and other obstacles prevent it functioning properly'. Well the same can be said for socialism.
I’ll try to suffer through this. Reich is a nice, polite guy, that’s what I can’t stand. He softens up his dopey, low-info audience. When he and C. Hedges were discussing where the country needed to go , before the first Trump presidency, on Amy Goodman, Hedges accurately predicted this shitty outcome while Robert was mostly tip- toeing through the tulips making excuses for the ass hole Democrats , like a frooty-toot liberal. Fucking annoying. I know he means well so I’ll give him another chance.
Robert Reich refuses to give up hope and has a plan for a more just society. Tearing up the social contract is a nice way of categorizing Trump and his ilk, who have moved us further away from the reality of an economy and a political system that makes life affordable in several ways. The program’s guests are sensitive to the fact that the so-called New Democrats, beginning with Bill Clinton, weaponized the economy in favor of wealth. Ronald Reagan began the long march toward militarization of this nation along with beginning the party of low taxes on the wealthy. These folks’ agenda followed on the heels of the deindustrialization of the US that has left swaths of this nation without the industry that once fed, housed, educated, and cared for millions of people.
The track record of Democrats is not good. They have acted in concert with Republicans to allow the military-industrial-investment complex to distort the US and that of the larger world. Do not underestimate the power of those in power to try to keep things just as they are. The latter is an agenda for disaster.
There’s a YouTube travel guide whose host roams around New England and New York and very convincingly and in an entertaining way finds the niche food and coffee businesses that exist amid the abandoned hulls of industry that have long departed these places. Without industry, an art studio (not a bad thing) and coffee shops cannot fuel an economy where people earn living wages, where kids can be educated, and housing is available.
Derek Shearer presented a “change in priorities,” which pushes back against the predatory system that allows millions to vote against their own best interests in order to feel good about a strong man who has allowed millions to sink further from the ideals of the New Deal.
A lot of god stuff but is just want to comment on this: when Robert Reich says that people don't care about labels, they just want to work hard and put food on the table, I chuckled because my first thought was that he was excluding the billionaires and millionaires because they dot want to work hard, and they don't worry about food on the table. Basically, they are excluded from humanity. Which I 100% agree.
All sounds very promising. But then how will money be taken from the war machine that was carefully spread across nearly every community in the US without all politicians screaming about "job loss" and the 40 trillion dollars of debt.
Ralph and Robert are my heroes!!They speak my language at 79. The Democrats need this kind of drastic change they advise! Weirdly, Schumer and Jeffries, the Democrat leaders, are more closely allied to Trump than many even realize.
People who are too old to serve? Mitch?
Charities should not exist, as in there should not be a need for them.
Charities should not be tax deductible - ever.
If you do charity and request a receipt to use in your tax filings, that wasn't charity at all
Corporations and rich people use charity giving as money manipulation
Can anyone name a democratic party platform and or plan to get high paying jobs back into America ? Can anyone name a democrat elected to the House of Representatives that does not talk all day long that the rich have all the money and has a Democrat ever talked to a rich Democratic doner and asked,,, how is their company going to provide a decent living wage to the people they employ ? . Has a Democrat leader ever presented a plan of how to exactly stop hedge funds from raising and lowering stocks with a I finance software programs that automatically skim billions of dollars each day into to the bank accounts of billionaires.,,? Leading to even more inflation.
Has a Democratic leader ever presented an exact day to day plan on how to stop the war with Iran ? Besides telling everyone giving money to Bibi is the problem.
Trump is not the problem, he lies, he cheats, every thing he does is in self-interest and the average Joe feels the democratic leadership has failed to take action with specific plans to right the ship .why not join trump ? they are tired of academic BS and do nothing democratic consultants,,,, Democrats should stop dreaming in their world of make believe ,,step up to the plate with a real plan or go under ,,,it's that simple and your choice, good luck America have a great day my friends.
Why is there never any discussion of public and community banks and monetary system reform?
We've covered public and community banks as well as postal banking a lot over time. Monetary system reform not really Ralph's wheelhouse.
Yes, that is too bad because the debt money system is an incredible source of unexamined power. It is also a source of unexamined crisis, and new designs for money systems offer possibilities for deep change, all mysterious and invisible to traditional progressives or leftists who have no idea of the potential of a money system that eliminates debt. With machinations to link Stablecoin to US Treasuries, mounting debt service, and Hormuz changing oil USD flows, the reserve currency status and the money system may finally become a flashpoint people have to notice.
Brett, the problem isn’t with the current monetary system itself. It is incredibly robust and capable of all kinds of progressive reforms, reserve status or not as the same principles apply to other countries with similar monetary systems such as the UK and Japan. The problem is that the monetary system is misunderstood by a large percentage of the global and domestic population, including the media and perhaps even a large number of politicians.
Corporate interests understand the monetary system quite well in modern times and have tilted fiscal policy in their favor (neoliberalism) because of this while the public is left powerless in part, in large part, because they don’t understand how to use the monetary system to their advantage in the same way. So, in that regard, you’re absolutely correct. There should be more discourse on the matter.
A good starting point is Stephanie Kelton’s 2020 book ‘The Deficit Myth,’ or the related 2023 documentary ‘Finding the Money’.
I’m very familiar with Kelton and company and we will have to agree to disagree. The debt based money system has got us to the brink of catastrophe. There are alternatives beyond the ones you mention, who foreground public debt alone, while backgrounding private debt that dwarfs public debt, drives enclosure, the productivity trap, constant growth, inequality, and ecological degradation. We need a first principles inquiry and a movement to bring that inquiry into the sunlight.
In terms of progressive reforms, Margrit Kennedy’s book ‘Occupy Money’ shows the inequality outcomes even in a highly reformed and regulated banking system like Germany’s with a large not for profit public banking sector. The wealth inequality is still evident.
As far as recommending a good starting point for you, since you recommended one for me, Jonathan McMillan ‘The End of Banking’ comes to mind. ‘Debt as Power’ by DiMuzio and Robbins, also.
Your position is strange to me. The 'debt based money system' seems to be pointing to something extra special, but all money in any form or configuration is a 'debt-based system'. The notion that the bulk of money is created by 'private banks' is misguided. Lots of money is created by banks (and it is government designated money of account), but these are 1:1 credit/debts of 'individual' borrowers (which must also be discharged by those individuals). And in a country like the US with a permanent foreign sector deficit, if the government wasn't providing the bulk of money supply through its normal conduit to maintain national income, the population would be actually bankrupt. The problem of banking is a legislation issue, not a monetary theory issue.
Brett, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive of each other. If there is such a thing as a pending crisis, it is a private debt crisis and not a public debt crisis. Expansion of the public debt, for public-benefiting purposes rather than for the benefit of private industry as is the case now, opens the door to many reforms which will lessen dependence on private banking and private debt. It is really all a matter of how fiscal policy is developed once there is an understanding how government can finance various progressive reforms. For example, education and medical debt can be eliminated overnight if Congress wishes to do so, and doing so will likely enhance productivity.
The problem with the likes of McMillan, which I am familiar with, is that it makes the assumption that money is created via the private banking system rather than from government. This is false, government spends money into existence. Government creates money by appropriating it via public spending and then it is created by the Treasury and Federal Reserve (other countries have a different central banking structure, but it all works the same). So, with that knowledge in hand, it actually makes reforming the banking system all that more achievable so as long as the public understands what is feasible just as corporate interests have understood this and use it to their advantage. That is, of course, where things fall apart.
There are plenty who agree with McMillan, like Werner (2014) or McLeay, Radia, and Thomas (2014). Kraemer, Jakelja, Brugger, & Nessel (2020) also. Like I said, we need a first principles inquiry and a movement to bring this inquiry into the sunlight. All these claims should be lined up in a row and examined against existing practices with their implications for justice and ecological impacts. There is way too much power and crisis unexamined. We can get clarity about exactly how the money is created and the implications for a society in debt to private interests. Ralph Nader is normally very good at these types of challenges. Too bad it’s not his wheelhouse. We’ll have to wait for someone else.
Articles like the McLeay et al. article stem from the post-GFC era when many economists, much less the general public, were confused about quantitative easing and what it really meant and whether it was necessary.
Now that time has passed, it is better to evaluate what happened during the Covid era to evaluate how governments, both in the US and elsewhere, spent to try to stabilize the economy. Did they turn to private banking?
No, obviously not. Rather, they passed appropriations, and then the money was created by spending it into the economy. Taxation does the inverse, it takes money out of the economy and cancels it which is contrary to the popular perception that government spending comes from recycled money. Taxation may help facilitate government spending by reducing the demand on finite real resources (inflation), but government spending does not come from taxation.
There's a lot more which can be said about the subject. The Kraemer et al. article you cited actually cites Randy Wray, and rightfully so as he's really the leading scholar in this area here in the US. The Ralph Nader Radio Hour would do well to have him on to discuss this subject.
Where was the plan? All I heard was a wish list.
As Ralph recently pointed out there is a difference between an agenda and a strategy. The agenda described in this episode has no strategy to achieve the agenda making it a wish list.
Robert Reich asked how can a politician stand up to the big money interests when you are taking their money and correctly answered that question by saying you can't.
If the politicians are taking big money they will be working for the big money interests.
Ralph asked do the politicians want the money or the votes.
Forcing the politicians to choose between the money or the votes is a strategy.
We can't do that if we vote for politicians that take big money. It gives the politicians no incentive to not take big money. It actually validates the politicians taking big money.
This is why we need a litmus test that says if a politician takes big money that politician will not get our votes.
You may have heard of this concept, Ralph- it's called democracy.
The question is how can citizens use their votes to without voting for a candidate that takes big money when there are no candidates on the ballot running small donor campaigns? Even the candidates running ON progressive agendas take big money so they will run FROM the progressive agenda if they are elected as they have done for forty plus years.
Citizens can cast a write in vote in 2026 to register a vote against the big money candidates on the ballot and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in 2028.
Just think if the 7.1 million people that did not vote in 2024 had instead cast a write in vote for this purpose. Many more citizens would be participating in making this demand in 2026 and we could have some small donor candidates on the ballot in 2026..
Let's start the revolution with a strategy instead of another book on agenda by forming a Union for Politics with a discussion of this strategy for Labor Day.
Just as workers can go on strike by withholding their labor to get better pay, working conditions, etc. citizens can go on strike by withholding their votes from politicians that take big money and casting a write in vote demanding small donor candidates.
We need you, Ralph, to help implement this bold plan instead of just offering the same old bull wish list.
If you want Ralph to have this discussion so you can learn more about this strategy so you can decide if you want to participate send an email to LaborDay@nader.org telling him you want him to participate in a discussion on this strategy at a Labor Day event.
Robert Reich has been a strong reformer and labor activist for many years. I wonder how much of the disasters of the Clinton administration were due to the Gingrich attacks and other Neanderthals who ended up undermining any real reform. Nafta, GATT, the telecom bill, the repeal of Glass Steagal were at least partly due to slimey people such as Larry Summers who worked to shut down the classics department at Harvard later. "Triangulation" seemed to be the Dick Morris plan, really what were the Clintons pushing for? Making policies to enrich themselves later? As Dean Blundell said, there are big financial reasons for Tillis and Cornyn to back AG Blanche: https://substack.com/@deanblundell/p-209938759
Steve, that was a nice jab about neoliberalism there in the discussion with Shearer. Klassik approves!
Klassik is far less approving of the narratives from Reich and Shearer though. Reich’s ten point plan is really just a rehashing of Democratic Party strategy from around the period of 1995-2010. Reich makes a bold claim in point 10 that everything above it will be ‘paid for’ by increased taxes.
Well, pay for what? Of all of those points, Reich only recommends two things which require any large government spending: point seven about healthcare and point eight about child/elder care. Even then, Reich’s recommendation for healthcare is hardly progressive, it only recommends allowing the public to buy Medicare coverage.
Then there is the most pressing point that the federal government is not constrained in their ability to spend. The US Dollar is not commodity-backed, the US can issue US Dollars as it pleases.
With that, we see how Reich’s agenda is really just a repeat of the neoliberal agenda implemented by Democrats in the period of 1995-2010. They promised something lightly progressive in that era, but then when they held power, they claimed their hands were tied due to the deficit and implemented social policy austerity. In the era after 2010, the Democrats shifted their policy to one of promising nothing and delivering nothing. Both the pre-2010 and post-2010 strategy opened the door to the likes of Trump.
On to Shearer et al.’s ‘A Bold Economic Program for America’. I read the entire 100+ page document. To me the most telling statements are on pages 86-87.
Prior to page 86, Shearer et al. describe the declining economic conditions for the public in the neoliberal era. There are many good points in there. However, starting on page 86 where Shearer et al. start discussing macroeconomic theory, things fall apart entirely and descend into the exact monetarism (and neoliberalism) which helped led to the exact degradation described above page 86.
While there is a lot which can be analyzed, Klassik will assess two pieces of balderdash from the report. First: “In 1972, President Nixon pressured the Fed to keep interest rates low, which helped his re-election but ushered in a period of increasing inflation” (p. 87).
Inflation in the 1970s was not primarily caused by low interest rates. To even say that is pure comedy. Inflation in the 1970s was primarily caused by rapidly increasing energy prices and shortages due to geopolitical conflict. To suggest otherwise would be equivalent to saying that increased gas prices in 2026 are caused by interest rates which are too low rather than the obvious cause of an ill-advised war disrupting the supply of oil in global markets. Nothing against Steve Skrovan, but even he cannot compose comedy with such hilarity to suggest that interest rates are the real reason for increased fuel prices now or in the 1970s!
Then the other monetarist point to analyize from the report: “Fiscal policy should use triggers to increase government spending when the unemployment rate is high, such as during the pandemic shutdowns, and run small surpluses when the unemployment rate is low, as was the case during the economic recovery from the pandemic” (p. 86).
So what Shearer et al. are suggesting here is that DOGE did not do enough to cut government expenditure! Say what?
There is absolutely no need for the federal government to ever run surpluses. Rather than this monetarist nonsense, the real economic strategy should be to eliminate unemployment entirely. This stabilizes the economy, and prices specifically, by smoothing the swings in prices and production caused by unemployment. When the federal government runs surpluses, it is putting the onus on the private sector to maintain economic growth which then leads to deregulation and increased focus on the finance sector rather than productive sectors of the economy...so a repeat of everything which Clinton and company implemented which led to the global financial crisis of 2008 and everything since.
Then there is the other obvious truth of monetarism, which Shearer et al. is promoting, is that unemployment is necessary to combat inflation. It is that exact ideology which led to the problems described above page 86 in his own report!
Klassik will grant Shearer the benefit of the doubt that he would like to see progressive policies implemented to benefit the American public, but Shearer’s entirely incompetent economic analysis is the exact reason why the American public continues to suffer setbacks regardless of which party is leading the federal government. Retreating to popular economic theories and ideology of the 1970s-2000s which have proven to be incorrect is not the path forward. The likes of Reich and Shearer need to be sent to retirement homes. They are, or should be, entirely irrelevant to modern Americans aside from studying how not to implement economic policy.
Good analysis and cuts right to the heart of the problem. The talking points about 'interest rates' and monetary policy being a driver of what are actually supply side shocks misleads and confuses discussion. The other point in the above reply to which readers here should pay attention is the position put forward by Shearer of 'running small surpluses' and tiny deficits as some sort of temporary remedy for regaining the sort of 'equilibrium' pseudo-economists imagine exists in 'normal times'.
Yes to Ralph, No to Robert Reich...
I’m tired of the word “affordability”. Reich is a Liberal. Liberals are profoundly useless. Capitalism can’t be fixed.
Capitalism has failed completely. As a result of capitalism we are on the verge of destructive global warming. There are now at least 8.8 billion people on the planet. The Earth’s human population quadrupled in 79 yrs. Ten nations have nuclear weapons. This puts all life on Earth and human civilization at major risk of elimination.
Greed is considered a positive characteristic by many wealthy citizens who want even more (see the movie Wall Street). There are more multibillionaires than ever before. The U.S. has the most ultra-wealthy people of any country. World billionaires are richer and more numerous than ever. According to NPR and Forbes Global Media there were 140 billionaires in the World in 1987. Today there are 3028 of them.
These super-rich are sick with greed. They should be in institutions to deal with their psychological sickness. They shouldn’t be running countries and businesses. They may kill us all if they aren’t stopped. They have already done serious damage to the infrastructure of the United States.
The ultra-rich finance both sides in any war. War is very profitable for them. Corporations including General Motors, Ford and Standard Oil supplied resources to Nazi Germany during WWII. These facts are contained in the book “Trading With The Enemy” by John Higham. Another source is the documentary “JFK to 911 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick” at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNYh7OVqXUN_GZ8K8IF5VWdYCkvy7fGYt.
Meanwhile, many people in the U.S. are homeless and cannot afford medical care or higher education. According to the National Literacy Institute, 21 percent of adults in the U.S. were illiterate in 2024. Fifty four percent of adults have literacy below a 6th-grade level. Twenty percent are literate below the 5th-grade level. Readers can learn even more at https://www.nu.edu/blog/49-adult-literacy-statistics-and-facts/. A 2020 Gallup study found that the U.S. economy could be losing up to $2.2 trillion annually due to low adult literacy rates.
The U.S Government has not supported education nearly enough. A very important subject not taught in my high school was logic. That should be a required subject to graduate from high school. Logic teaches students to analyze and evaluate speeches, videos or writing by anyone with a commercial, political, religious or another agenda.
These skills are rare in the United States. That is why Trump and his MAGA supporters were able to use his lies and get him elected by many poorly educated citizens.
Another problem is that the “mainstream” media does not give citizens any important news that may criticize corporations and their major shareholders.
Ed Oberweiser
Failed completely? It has pulled more people out of poverty than communism/socialism ever did. Since 1990, the rate of hard poverty worldwide fell from 40% to today's 12%. Particularly in china and india, the results have been spectacular.
The 'but it's better than communism!' thing is superficial. Homelessnesses was a non-problem in the Soviet Union, now it's an epidemic. And also an epidemic in the rest of the world after +/- 50 years of revived 'market mechanisms'. Bringing capitalism to Russia did not pull 'more people out of poverty' it put more people into it. Whilst no-one can deny China has adopted market capitalism measures into its economic policy, this alone is not what has been behind the dramatic fall in poverty rates there. The government's proactive interventions (actively planning to prevent job clustering in urban areas; the 'dibao' income transfer programme; food security policy etc) are what make up the real difference. The US, as the most developed capitalist country on earth has a higher poverty rate and wealth gap, by World Bank and OECD measures, than Chile, Thailand, Kyrgyzstan(!). We could argue that 'it's because corruption and other obstacles prevent it functioning properly'. Well the same can be said for socialism.
I’ll try to suffer through this. Reich is a nice, polite guy, that’s what I can’t stand. He softens up his dopey, low-info audience. When he and C. Hedges were discussing where the country needed to go , before the first Trump presidency, on Amy Goodman, Hedges accurately predicted this shitty outcome while Robert was mostly tip- toeing through the tulips making excuses for the ass hole Democrats , like a frooty-toot liberal. Fucking annoying. I know he means well so I’ll give him another chance.
Robert Reich refuses to give up hope and has a plan for a more just society. Tearing up the social contract is a nice way of categorizing Trump and his ilk, who have moved us further away from the reality of an economy and a political system that makes life affordable in several ways. The program’s guests are sensitive to the fact that the so-called New Democrats, beginning with Bill Clinton, weaponized the economy in favor of wealth. Ronald Reagan began the long march toward militarization of this nation along with beginning the party of low taxes on the wealthy. These folks’ agenda followed on the heels of the deindustrialization of the US that has left swaths of this nation without the industry that once fed, housed, educated, and cared for millions of people.
The track record of Democrats is not good. They have acted in concert with Republicans to allow the military-industrial-investment complex to distort the US and that of the larger world. Do not underestimate the power of those in power to try to keep things just as they are. The latter is an agenda for disaster.
There’s a YouTube travel guide whose host roams around New England and New York and very convincingly and in an entertaining way finds the niche food and coffee businesses that exist amid the abandoned hulls of industry that have long departed these places. Without industry, an art studio (not a bad thing) and coffee shops cannot fuel an economy where people earn living wages, where kids can be educated, and housing is available.
Derek Shearer presented a “change in priorities,” which pushes back against the predatory system that allows millions to vote against their own best interests in order to feel good about a strong man who has allowed millions to sink further from the ideals of the New Deal.
You could have publically funded elections of limited duration...say 6 weeks.
A lot of god stuff but is just want to comment on this: when Robert Reich says that people don't care about labels, they just want to work hard and put food on the table, I chuckled because my first thought was that he was excluding the billionaires and millionaires because they dot want to work hard, and they don't worry about food on the table. Basically, they are excluded from humanity. Which I 100% agree.
All sounds very promising. But then how will money be taken from the war machine that was carefully spread across nearly every community in the US without all politicians screaming about "job loss" and the 40 trillion dollars of debt.