Thom got me involved with politics when I was younger. He used to have Bernie on weekly for a call in segment. It really changed how I viewed politics and I ended up volunteering for his campaign.
Absolutely. Thats important too but when you critique the neo liberal dems you gain more support because people see you as more well rounded not polarized and one sided
One of the real struggles in educating people on these issues is how certain issues become viruses of the mind, and spread like a disease; and so people end up supporting political positions that will undermine their own interests. How can that be penetrated in a way to wake people up to the deeper threats to their own interests? Hartman has great insight; how can his message penetrate where it is most needed? It’s a real challenge. At 78 I’m aware that I am no longer in a real middle class despite a Masters Degree and what would have been a good retirement. My vision of spending my last days in relative comfort has disappeared; I’m now going down the ladder I climbed. I hear a lot of peers expressing the same frustrations. I just hope his message can reach the right ears to help us shift directions.
I was sent to Washington, D.C. in September, 1980 and was present during the Inauguration of Ronald Regan. I immediately sensed a retrograde action taking place, and warned people to expect us to march backward 30 years. Ironically, many of the Hippies and protesters of the 1970s suddenly jumped ship and landed on the Regan wagon, attracted to the very materialistic Capitalism they opposed in the previous decade. What resulted was a section of the population who lived with blinders on, only seeing their own superficial affluence without recognizing the bigger picture. All this did was create more narrow-minded, superficial people who did nothing but create more problems than solve them.
Not quite. The intellectual hippies were well aware of Reagan's lies. But they were now middle-aged and working hard to make a living with children to feed. Capitalism is only a problem when it is unregulated and lacks a socialist balance. If they misjudged anything it was the belief that democracy would prevail over the next 43 years. Instead, we are now literally in the throws of the Nazification of America. In 1980, Vietnam era anti-war protesters were still high, not on marijuana, but on the overthrow of the Nixon administration and the end of the criminal and outrageous war. They can be excused for not seeing the sinister process that led to Gingrich, Norquist, the Tea Party, the Trump Insurrection - all unthinkable in 1980.
Did protesting government stop because the war ended, or because the draft ended. Nobody has been protesting any war, or basically anything else, since Vietnam. Except for 1 or 2 million man marches and a summer of Black Lives Matter, its been deathly quiet since 1974. Now the kids are on their iPhones 24/7. They barely get out of bed. Selfies and cat videos get the most attention.
Stupid beyond belief,Clinton and Obama did nafta instead of reversing any Reagan policies.Obama,Clinton,Biden 20 years of Dem presidents doing nafta globalization and accumulating 2/3 of our national debt while not reversing any Reagan stuff.But somehow it's Reagans fault.
I first found him on AM radio in the early 2000s and have been listening (and then watching) for almost 20 years. Always learn something on his program.
Try teaching it in Florida. They'll arrest you for wokeness, socialism, communism, and desecration of the Confederate flag, the symbol of the white aristocracy and its right to rule according to Christian standards, which are figments of the imagination used only to discriminate according to race, gender, and wealth. Welcome back to the old South now taking over the world, again.
Neither Joe nor his audience would understand one word of anything Thom said but it would be worth spreading this information to an even larger audience
Truth and wisdom. This answers some important questions. Why do Republican politicians run the risky strategy of lying more often? Why is racism still a feature of 21st century western politics? Why are women’s reproductive freedoms a point f obsession for some politicians? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, is this a result of capitalism or does a democracy have a choice over this?
Fantastic when we get to hear two smart folks have quality conversations. Have been seeing a lot more of this lately. Finally! Do more of this! Our side, SYNTHESIS. Let the others fight if they wish. Lets have smart conversations like you're doing here.
Salon 2011 article excerpt: "Carter, not Reagan, pioneered the role of the fiscally conservative governor who runs against the mess in Washington, promising to shrink the bureaucracy and balance the budget. Early in his administration, Carter was praised by some on the right for his economic conservatism. Ronald Reagan even wrote a newspaper column titled "Give Carter a Chance." The most conservative Democrat in the White House since Grover Cleveland, Carter fought most of his battles with Democratic liberals, not Republican conservatives."
I live in Sweden. And his point about usa being farther into neoliberalism than uk applies on Sweden also imo. Sweden had a very strong social democracy after the second world war, but in the 80’s neoliberalism started to take a foot here also. And now we basically only have the “far left” who are not neoliberal. Also, regarding england and it’s state neoliberalism, majority of young people are opening up to authoritarianism. Actually to some extend same in Sweden.
@@coopsnz1 they don’t steal anything. We collectively pay into government so we can have a more functional society. And there should be more taxes, especially on richer people.
Fascinating how the Chicago School Of Economics invaded the U.S. through horrible Reagan. I loved Naomi Klein’s book on the extent people suffered world wide from the plot to apply such politico-economic policies: “The Shock Doctrine.”
I'm a Brit living in Bali and also a regular here at the David Pakman show. I have just been out for a walk along Sanur Beach and discovered that Bali's first hotel built for the mass-tourism era, the Bali Beach Hotel, is currently being demolished to make way for . . . . . a Mayo Clinic hospital. Like the UK, Indonesia has its own state healthcare provision. So who is this new hospital for? It's for rich Asians, in particular rich Indonesians, as an alternative to flying to Singapore, the US or Japan for sophisticated healthcare. Rest assured, few if any of the ordinary local Indonesian people would be able to pay for the Mayo Clinic's services. British readers will remember the promises made by Boris Johnson during the December 2019 election campaign, namely that 40 new hospitals will be built across the country. Yep, you can bet the Tories have plans for 40 new hospitals indeed, perhaps more, but they won't be NHS hospitals, they will be private hospitals like the one the Mayo Clinic is now building here in Sanur, Bali, and if you, like the ordinary local Indonesian people where I live, can't afford to pay then tough, because Liz Truss's new "Conservative" government won't be wasting any time getting rid of the NHS, like the true Neoliberals they really are. Google "Indonesia Partners with Mayo Clinic To Build New International Hospital in Bali, Operational By Mid-2023".
Delayed hi from Sweden. Just an FYI: we've had over 30 years of Neoliberalism at this point, it's not pushing hard to get here, it's been the hegemonic system for decades.
That why your middle class beter off lowering taxes in Sweden , since in the 80s it was a communist country you couldn't own property. Australia heading to Sweden 80s hell you own no assets private sector
The politics of Reagan are felt today in very negative ways. Large, controlling corporate entities, elimination of unions for workers (taking away collective bargaining, so no voice) and Trump loves this. Remember, Reagan was an actor and so is Trump.
I am soooooo happy that one of my favorite political UA-camrs brought the OG Thom Hartmann on! I don’t think he gets enough attention from left UA-cam.
Still looking for a definition of neoliberalism that I can understand. It always seemed like an oxymoron to me I have decided that this should have done it but I am just incapable of understanding.
Liberalism was an ideology formed by men that was in a class above workers, but weren't part of the noble class. They had nothing against an elite as a concept, they just didn't want it to be exclusive for the noble class, they instead believed that the best people should be sorted out through their idea of important knowledge. Schools was kind of a sorting machine, people that got out on top, had earned their place in the elite. They never realized that the playfield wasn't even. Instead they choose to see themselves as special. With the old liberalism they saw that the state had a function in providing certain services like schools, so that everyone would have access. In new (neo) liberalism they think that the private sector can handle anything, and that due to competition, there will be self regulations, so the state doesn't even have to regulate. The free market concept, I don't really see as anything new in liberalism, it was just the opportunities with transport technology, communications, that changed how free the market could be. Liberal elites used to import things, as that was an elite tradition from long before, they never let that go, and it would be hard to see that they had any intention, as they never saw national borders as something that important. Liberalism is not about equity, it is a different way of sorting out the elites. It just happened to be that they gave people public schools. And in their efforts, they started a democratization process in that it took power away from the noble class. The freedom was always for the people in the elite. The simple minded people, would be the workers that were still needed, and those people wouldn't mind since they were so simple minded. Feminism is pretty much the same but for women. Which is a big reason why the left has problems today. They have a form of liberalism as a close allied without realizing it. Both are problematic in that they can help groups of people some way towards a better life. But they can never provide the maximum amount of people with a good life, as it isn't part of their ideological structure, which is instead clearly focuses on lifting a small elite above the rest of men and women respectively. It was obvious in the womensmovement in the US when they distanced themselves from black women, said that they should stand back, as they would make it harder for white women to make progress. Feminism is still more focused on more female bosses than improving life for working class women, except for any right that also affects middle and upper class women. They even create conflicts between the sexes, in the working class, so that women and men in the working class would join in a class struggle. Another problem with liberalists is that they own a lot of media, as the so called free press was their idea. In it though they can set the narrative. The left-right political scale, where they can make themselves out to be the balanced compromise in the middle. The GAL-TAN where they put themselves on the top again. They form the narrative about the challenges, and possible solutions, and avoid topics that they struggle with finding any paths forward in, that does not benefit the elite. They can often coin loaded terms that then get used even by left media, as they are so established that people don't understand what the left is talking about even if they use a neutral term. And they fight the left, hard. It is a right wing ideology, after all... just a different one from the conservativism. So the new (neo) part is just a bit of changes at the edges. Probably mostly defined as something different by those that did not see the issues with liberalism and thought that the wave of liberalism that took hold of the higher offices was something different than what liberalism alway was. But it gets really confusing in the US, as liberals and liberalism is used to mean something else than the actual political movement it was formed as and still serves in the role as. Coporate democrats and coporate republicans are the liberals. They are the elites, that most of them got there without lineage from a noble family.
The term neoliberasm is confusing because I see Orban and Reagan as more like authoritarian monopolistic corporatism. We could get better representation if we could get rid of gerrymandering.
Ronald Reagan is scum even though I voted for him back in the day. He said anyone from anywhere in the world can come to this country and become an American.
Education will not necessarily help fight the aggressive capitalist ideas (misconceptions and lies) that help support billionaire's greed, considering how much is spent to get those ideas into our minds in the first place!
Good point, corporations are free to go anywhere in the world however Americans are not. To emigrate to another country from the US requires a lot of money to get residency which most Americans do not have, so they are not free to leave.
Thom needs more eyes on his channel! He does great work and really knows the historical context of politics. But his UA-cam channel gets very small numbers.
I always associated the term "neoliberalism" as emerging during the mid-late eighties when traditional liberalism kind of hit the skids (think Mondale), people who were wedded to the goals of traditional liberalism, but not necessarily the methods used by traditional liberals. Think Gary Hart or, to an extent, Bill Clinton.
pretty much the only change was allowing for private schools to take over. Liberalism has always been an ideology that has been for an elite. It never cared much about national borders. It wasn't aboout freedom and equal opportunity. It was about sorting out who they thought belonged to the elite, and remove the mandatory noble heritage to reach the elite. In their struggle to achieve that, they gave people public schooling. And it helped spark a democratization process. I'm not sure who coined the term, if it was people who were on the left, but thought they were liberals, but did not like the liberal wave, because they rightfully did not see their place in it, but that was because they were actually left, or if it was by the liberals themselves that wanted a new term, to market themselves better.
I think the period before Reagan and Thatcher perhaps knew some excesses (like strikes paralyzing society for weeks) and a lot of wild grass was cut off and served to feed Neoliberalism for a while. Corporations knew the government was no longer on the side of society but on theirs. This fueled optimism and trust. That's why it worked for a while is my gut feeling (no economist) but one might wonder what other option would have been much better. What was really going on??
David Stockman said in "Triumph of Politics (Over Policy)" that Reagan didn't recognize a distinction between personal and corporate income tax. Reagan was stuck in the Hollywood mindset that actors stop working for the year after two movies to avoid entering a higher tax bracket, and didn't understand that, unlike individuals, corporations can reinvest in themselves to reduce their tax burden.
Let me recover from what I just heard "a higher tax rate is an incentive to invest, because business expenses are tax deductible". And then Hartmann agreeing with it.
I listened to those comments a couple times wondering if I had taken crazy pills. Plenty of fine commentary in the interview, but clearly they have a weak understanding of corporate finance.
NOTE: Women did not burn bras; GIRDLES were rejected. Bras give support while girdles constrict. Betty Friedan, in the 1980s warned against the metaphoric girdle that blinds the eyes.
If taxes are too high then how did these billionaires pile up billions in assets? It is a simple question but just try to get a billionaire to give that question a straight answer.
The inflation we're seeing now is a direct result of the soaring oil prices. In this civilization oil is the key commodity. Now, the environment cannot take much more co2, and remain habitable for us. It's almost as if we're at a tipping point on a number of fronts. These problems could all be solved with a transition to renewable energy - solar, and wind.
The answer to why the markets are not just falling apart at all the bad news from fed and economy now is psychological. Anyone who has had a bad marriage know the feeling these people losing the goose that laid the golden egg spread her wings and fly away. No matter it was ill gotten gains or she cheated on you or you cheated on her in the marriage or the pet project you had going became a bad venture, you just could not let go as your insides became a world of pain and anguish. So now those ones who profitted greatly are going to have to come back to earth. It is denial floating the markets. Next when reality hits and they do lose all they hoarded at our expense, great sorrow and regret as the truth sinks in while these fake markets sink no longer able to stand under the great weight of corruption it has operated under. We can all win if we let party lines go and fight for the truth. We cant win if we stay divided and let those continue to use us like sheep to be fleeced. If we stay this or that and cannot come together under truth and honor we will crash and burn with them
"Richer than the pharaohs". "Taxes encourage investment". Exactly why we used to buy houses back in the days that we could afford them. Income spent on rent is taxable.
I'd be more interested to know how Hartman proposes taxing investment wealth, since an income tax wouldn't have much effect. It's also simplistic to say that billionaire's "don't buy more jeans" so don't benefit the economy. Doesn't their investment provide the capital that helps the economy grow?
I’m Canadian so, since we have parties named both “Liberal” and “Conservative,” I find myself having to preface any discussion that involves either of those two terms and their “neo-“ prefixes. A big difference between Canada and the USA is that we find the equation between Liberal and Left inaccurate to the point of being wholly false, whereas in the US, the term “liberal” is almost always associated with socialism (which many low-brows in both counties equate with communism). But one similarity is the fact that conservative parties in both nations have moved so far to the right that they aren’t conservative anymore. Nomenclature isn’t that important in this respect in the USA because the term “conservative” or “Tory” (a term Canadian conservatives proudly call themselves) was shunned as colonially British, and “Republican” replaced them just like “Episcopalian” replaced “Anglican,” the Church of England. Nevertheless, the traditional definition of conservatism is grievously challenged by the shift to the right ever since Reagan kicked off the neo-right “revolution,” culminating in “The End of History,” but finding an aphelion shortly after 9/11 and decline ever since. I call today’s nominal conservative parties “neo-right” because they are not really conservative at all and can’t very well be called, as they once were, “NeoCons.” The concern is that many genuinely conservative voters still don’t get that their respective parties have been usurped by globalizing neoliberalism in service of stateless corporatocracy -that is, out to hobble democratic sovereignty and undermine nations’ capacity to tax and regulate private profit. Many real conservatives are moderate, right-of-centre citizens who have, since the 40-year neo-right arc began, gradually moved away from their nominally-and nominal-conservative parties. Those who remain with the nominal conservative ship as it sails towards the edge of its passengers’ flat earth defensively call the centre-right they’ve abandoned “the left.” We’ve seen how vicious neo-right rhetoric has become as it begins to suffer throes nearing the end of its arc. No sane person wants to be so-targeted, so there’s probably a much bigger faction of erstwhile conservatives who keep quite about their position-and that has the effect of slowing the process of aborting the neo-right movement (I for one consider it irredeemable) and creating a new conservative party that rejects malignant neoliberalism. I’m not conservative myself, but I believe partisan balance is a good thing. We Canadians have bonafide socialist parties in the federal parliament and most provincial assemblies. Most of us (I am a member of the socialist New Democratic Party) laugh when Americans call liberals “socialist” or “left” because, for us, Liberals are centrist and, since the neo-right movement succeeded in moving the entire set of parties rightward on left-right spectrum, have occupied philosophical territory on the centre-right which the Conservative Party of Canada has abandoned as it, just like the tRumpublican party, sails ever closer to the edge. There’s a reason why the Liberals have governed Canada far more times than the Conservatives (the NDP has governed several provinces but never the federal government): it’s called ‘campaigning on the left and governing on the right.’ Today’s federal government is a Liberal minority which must be supported by the NDP (the second such alliance in a row since 2015 when the 9year-old CPC government was defeated). Thus “Dippers” like me rather see Liberalism as a kind of liberal-conservative party (indeed, Canada’s first federal government was so-named) and not liberal in the classic, 19th century sense. But neither is the Liberal Party “neoliberal” because of its longstanding parliamentary relationship with the NDP (the NDP was created in 1961 and supported two Liberal minorities in the early 60s, the alliances implementing in universal public healthcare). But Liberal voters-who, btw, are very loyal-don’t mind just as long as the party is united (the post Jean Chrétien Liberals effectively punched themselves out of the running in a massive schism which allowed the CPC to govern by default, its first two governments being only minorities and its only majority being its last. This happened because many Liberal voters simply stayed home until it got sorted-and the CPC was soon after defeated). Many Dippers disapprove of the general shift rightward-of their own party, that is. Well, near’s I can tell, we’ve moved, at most, into centre-left territory the Liberals have abandoned as they pursue CPC-abandoned territory right of centre. But we’re still essentially a leftist party, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-public services, and pro-important public enterprises. Politically involved people are getting so sensitive these days. The confusion on both sides of the border is about what is conservative, not what is liberal or socialist (even if Americans tend to get the Canadian left and centre-left wrong). Thing is, we all know what conservative is supposed to be and many can see what the dilemma is for the partisan-right at this time. The problem, I think, is that a lot of moderate Tories don’t see it yet -or at least are in denial that their veteran parties have been ruined by globalizing neoliberalism-or the “neo-right.” Everything from now on will deal with this -uh-let’s just call it a “transitional phase.” Pray that it ends sooner than later. We all got big challenges that need all hands on deck.
Reagan just employed a CIA PSYOP that was first rolled out in Argentina under Nixon and called it “supply side economics.” To this day there is a major spread in economic equality in Argentina !!!
I hope you don't take this wrong David, but the reason I like your channel is that I view you as a younger, less learned version of Thom. And I'm hoping you keep doing what you do and keep learning, to someday carry on that torch (That torch being, informed and honest commentary with a liberal dose of integrity)
Hamilton's trade policy was from the Tudor plan adopted after Sir Thomas of Wales took out Richard the 3rd which begat Tudors and protestantism from UK to USA.
I am to the left of Keynesianism, but Keynesianism has won over the majority of Democrats, and even a few Republicans like John Kasich who supports the basic policies. The right wing propaganda against Keynes i don’t think is sustainable because it is generally non-sense propaganda that even MAGA rejects in favor of protectionism. So Keynesianism has a chance of building momentum. I support Varoufakis’s ideas which goes one step beyond social democracy. What I realistically wish for is a shift to the left where the Right are Keynesian and left advocate for Varoufakis’s policies. I don’t think this is unrealistic as most Republicans actually want their Social Security checks for their parents and grandparents. To “make America great again” is really a restoration of Keynesianism but they have talking heads who tell them differently.
Let me add this from vaguely related note from over the pond: While I find Varoufakis economic policies interesting, his foreign policy is downright atrocious and, as I see it, dangerous. For years he has - like many Greeks across the political spectrum, but particularly towards the extremes - echoed and amplified pro-Russian and anti-American as well as anti-German propaganda and this also continues to this day. Clothing such vile bigotry under the mantle of supposed antiimperialism and antifascism makes me disdain him even more. At any rate, I don't think that the right can realistically return to Keynesianism in the U.S. any time soon because opposition to it has become to entrenched into their identity.
Neoliberalism is almost as bad as “neoconservativism”. Low taxes is conservatism. Claiming that diversity is a goal (rather than a natural outgrowth of focusing on equal opportunity and excellence) and deciding that prejudice is the most central issue through which the entire world must be viewed is a big problem.
If corporations are deemed "people" too, then why should they not be taxed and their international movements be governed as such ? Reagan wasn't the Great Communicator. He was the Great Bullshitter, who probably barely comprehended the nonsense he was pitching. Hated him from day 1.
Technology may not be as agnostic as your guest might think. In fact, it might be responsible for many of the problems we face to today because 'neo liberalism' can be built into Technology, and Technology can be used reinforce neoliberalism either through data , infrastructure or the products themselves. The rise of the new right couldn't have happened without Technology and the use of big data. IBM once again playing a proud role in this.
The neoliberalism dynamic is interesting, but the real reason for the decline in the middle class in the US, jobs being shipped overseas, is that labor in the US was opened up to international competition in the 1970s, as were companies and management on a hyper scale. US labor productivity in general was lower than overseas, so the jobs went to the cheapest source as a free economy would dictate. Labor unions just made the work force more rigid and accelerated that move. However, companies and management greeted the global challenge and excelled in a few markets creating the global leaders that exist today. Unions are not a panacea for labor, and probably actually hurt laborers with the way the unions are set up now. To replace unions, companies could be forced to provide a reasonable share of stock to employees, who are creating the economic value, and then let the employees decided representation on the boards, etc.
David, sir, please have Thom and Professor Wolf on the show (if possible) more often. Dissecting hate mail, gets nauseating after awhile. We all get that conservatives are sadistic sociopaths and psychopaths -- it's their modus operandi.
Reagan was the worst thing to happen to America in the last 100 years.
@notfiveo those are the two I always think of.
dont forget GW and crew.. Giga Mega Ultra Ew
just like Tonald Dromph, he turned to politics when his career declined. a showbiz blowbag.
Worse than Chump? Doesn't seem possible.
@@tmcd5049 Made trump possible. Or, arguably, inevitable.
Thom got me involved with politics when I was younger. He used to have Bernie on weekly for a call in segment. It really changed how I viewed politics and I ended up volunteering for his campaign.
I loved breakfast with bernie
Pretty much me too. I started listening to him on Air America.
Appreciate you both. "Democracy is not a spectator sport" is firmly seared in my mind thanks to Thom.
I like to see a lot more of this type of interview than the non-stop commentary about Donald Trump and Republican outrage.
I agree. Pakman has to expand himself more on topics.
Absolutely. Thats important too but when you critique the neo liberal dems you gain more support because people see you as more well rounded not polarized and one sided
@@jimm2600 republicans AND neo liberal fake left can all go eat a bag of 🍆’s
Two of my most loved American brethren working together, ya’ll keep it up!
Thom Hartmann's knowledge of history is mindblowing. So great to see him here.
Thom is a bottomless well of information and sound judgment.
Twisted visions of the past only expose how insane you guys are and how your path will not go far.
probably because of all those books behind him!
@@morphkogan8627 Out-of-date, partisan, hack/quack books.
@@rjkmusicmedia it’s actually yours that are revisionist accounts not substantiated by historical context and precedent. Anything to save face
I love when you interview Thom Hartman. I listen to The Hartman Report pod and his UA-cam daily, brilliant guy!
One of the real struggles in educating people on these issues is how certain issues become viruses of the mind, and spread like a disease; and so people end up supporting political positions that will undermine their own interests. How can that be penetrated in a way to wake people up to the deeper threats to their own interests? Hartman has great insight; how can his message penetrate where it is most needed? It’s a real challenge. At 78 I’m aware that I am no longer in a real middle class despite a Masters Degree and what would have been a good retirement. My vision of spending my last days in relative comfort has disappeared; I’m now going down the ladder I climbed. I hear a lot of peers expressing the same frustrations. I just hope his message can reach the right ears to help us shift directions.
Always great to see Thom Hartmann. Your questions were incredibly insightful and to the point.
I was sent to Washington, D.C. in September, 1980 and was present during the Inauguration of Ronald Regan. I immediately sensed a retrograde action taking place, and warned people to expect us to march backward 30 years. Ironically, many of the Hippies and protesters of the 1970s suddenly jumped ship and landed on the Regan wagon, attracted to the very materialistic Capitalism they opposed in the previous decade. What resulted was a section of the population who lived with blinders on, only seeing their own superficial affluence without recognizing the bigger picture. All this did was create more narrow-minded, superficial people who did nothing but create more problems than solve them.
Not quite. The intellectual hippies were well aware of Reagan's lies. But they were now middle-aged and working hard to make a living with children to feed. Capitalism is only a problem when it is unregulated and lacks a socialist balance. If they misjudged anything it was the belief that democracy would prevail over the next 43 years. Instead, we are now literally in the throws of the Nazification of America. In 1980, Vietnam era anti-war protesters were still high, not on marijuana, but on the overthrow of the Nixon administration and the end of the criminal and outrageous war. They can be excused for not seeing the sinister process that led to Gingrich, Norquist, the Tea Party, the Trump Insurrection - all unthinkable in 1980.
Did protesting government stop because the war ended, or because the draft ended. Nobody has been protesting any war, or basically anything else, since Vietnam. Except for 1 or 2 million man marches and a summer of Black Lives Matter, its been deathly quiet since 1974. Now the kids are on their iPhones 24/7. They barely get out of bed. Selfies and cat videos get the most attention.
Thanks for this interview. It was great to see Mr Hartmann again.
Sir, best interview you’ve done so far! The part toward the end about the book “The Conservative Mind” I never knew and explains so much!
Tom Hartman is excellent. Thank you sir!
More Thom Hartmann please!
I cannot believe that the BEST content gets so few views while a MTG post gets a shit load - our society is truly diseased as Chris Hedges said
Thom Hartmann is one of the best personality on a radio and television it's a great person great personality amazing human being
Manchin and Sinema assisting the GQP in continuing the Reagan disaster. It would be fascinating to see their text messages over the past five years.
Stupid beyond belief,Clinton and Obama did nafta instead of reversing any Reagan policies.Obama,Clinton,Biden 20 years of Dem presidents doing nafta globalization and accumulating 2/3 of our national debt while not reversing any Reagan stuff.But somehow it's Reagans fault.
This is a great interview! So much substance.
You saw a fraction of it.
Thom's show on RTV was one of the first progressive shows that I stumbled across. He's awesome!
I first found him on AM radio in the early 2000s and have been listening (and then watching) for almost 20 years. Always learn something on his program.
This should be taught in schools, I’ve never heard a more accurate summation of society before
Try teaching it in Florida. They'll arrest you for wokeness, socialism, communism, and desecration of the Confederate flag, the symbol of the white aristocracy and its right to rule according to Christian standards, which are figments of the imagination used only to discriminate according to race, gender, and wealth. Welcome back to the old South now taking over the world, again.
Finally, someone points out some business taxation basics that put the lie to the talking points. Thanks, David.
Young David Pakman interviewing Old David Pakman.
Yes!!!!
best comment lol
Maybe as an online chronicler only though doubtful, surely not as an activist.
*Familiar with Thom Hartmann's bibliography?*
😂😂😂
How wise you are. Bingo
Whoa... I've got to let my mind marinate in ALL this knowledge!
As always, David.. Fantastic interview!!
Such a great interview. I learned so many important things.
I really wish Thom would be invited to the Joe Rogan podcast, just to inject some sanity.
Wouldn't that be something. Rogan seems genuinely curious about smart people, so a bit surprised it hasn't occurred. Maybe some day.
Well, I am not convinced that Joe Rogan will.
Neither Joe nor his audience would understand one word of anything Thom said but it would be worth spreading this information to an even larger audience
Truth and wisdom. This answers some important questions. Why do Republican politicians run the risky strategy of lying more often? Why is racism still a feature of 21st century western politics? Why are women’s reproductive freedoms a point f obsession for some politicians? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, is this a result of capitalism or does a democracy have a choice over this?
Legalized bribery killed democracy -- Citizens United decision. Trickle-down is the economics of fascism now.
Imo, racism is still a feature of western politics because cowardice is still a feature of the Caucasian mindset.
2 replies and both of them hidden by UA-cam's AI.
I love listening to these two, even if much of it is over my head.
then you must be 12 years old.
I love that word MORBIDLY RICH
Yes that gave me a chuckle
Love Thom Hartmann, he, like Bernie Sanders has been fighting the good fight for a long time.
Thx david for helping educate ourselves.
Thom is my favorite. Learned so much from him
Everyone should be required to watch this… wow. Great context for how we got here.
Thom is the man! Is work on ADHD is great too.
Fantastic when we get to hear two smart folks have quality conversations. Have been seeing a lot more of this lately. Finally! Do more of this! Our side, SYNTHESIS. Let the others fight if they wish. Lets have smart conversations like you're doing here.
Fascinating and said in a way a layperson can understand, wondering if the book is written that way as well.
Thom Hartman is the goat
Salon 2011 article excerpt: "Carter, not Reagan, pioneered the role of the fiscally conservative governor who runs against the mess in Washington, promising to shrink the bureaucracy and balance the budget. Early in his administration, Carter was praised by some on the right for his economic conservatism. Ronald Reagan even wrote a newspaper column titled "Give Carter a Chance." The most conservative Democrat in the White House since Grover Cleveland, Carter fought most of his battles with Democratic liberals, not Republican conservatives."
I live in Sweden. And his point about usa being farther into neoliberalism than uk applies on Sweden also imo. Sweden had a very strong social democracy after the second world war, but in the 80’s neoliberalism started to take a foot here also. And now we basically only have the “far left” who are not neoliberal.
Also, regarding england and it’s state neoliberalism, majority of young people are opening up to authoritarianism. Actually to some extend same in Sweden.
Government steal 50% of your money in Sweden if your in middle class
@@coopsnz1 they don’t steal anything. We collectively pay into government so we can have a more functional society. And there should be more taxes, especially on richer people.
@@veganvvarrior political get richer are you brainwashed
Left politics leader in my country own 5 homes he Corupt anthony albonese
Sweden will become nonwhite by the end of the century, Hahaha!
Fascinating how the Chicago School Of Economics invaded the U.S. through horrible Reagan.
I loved Naomi Klein’s book on the extent people suffered world wide from the plot to apply such politico-economic policies: “The Shock Doctrine.”
David and Thom are both such heavy hitters in the knowledge and analysis department. Always a pleasure to see Thom as a guest!
I'm a Brit living in Bali and also a regular here at the David Pakman show. I have just been out for a walk along Sanur Beach and discovered that Bali's first hotel built for the mass-tourism era, the Bali Beach Hotel, is currently being demolished to make way for . . . . . a Mayo Clinic hospital.
Like the UK, Indonesia has its own state healthcare provision. So who is this new hospital for? It's for rich Asians, in particular rich Indonesians, as an alternative to flying to Singapore, the US or Japan for sophisticated healthcare. Rest assured, few if any of the ordinary local Indonesian people would be able to pay for the Mayo Clinic's services.
British readers will remember the promises made by Boris Johnson during the December 2019 election campaign, namely that 40 new hospitals will be built across the country. Yep, you can bet the Tories have plans for 40 new hospitals indeed, perhaps more, but they won't be NHS hospitals, they will be private hospitals like the one the Mayo Clinic is now building here in Sanur, Bali, and if you, like the ordinary local Indonesian people where I live, can't afford to pay then tough, because Liz Truss's new "Conservative" government won't be wasting any time getting rid of the NHS, like the true Neoliberals they really are.
Google "Indonesia Partners with Mayo Clinic To Build New International Hospital in Bali, Operational By Mid-2023".
Great interview!
WOW. So much packed in to that few minutes. So eye opening. Maybe "neoliberalism" should be called "pseudoliberalism"?
Awesome convo and interview, cheers
Wow! Brilliant interview!
Delayed hi from Sweden. Just an FYI: we've had over 30 years of Neoliberalism at this point, it's not pushing hard to get here, it's been the hegemonic system for decades.
That why your middle class beter off lowering taxes in Sweden , since in the 80s it was a communist country you couldn't own property. Australia heading to Sweden 80s hell you own no assets private sector
@@coopsnz1 that's either an outright lie, or just very, very dumb. Hard to tell.
Nice to hear from Thom. I used to watch his show on RT America.
Wow. Excellent interview. Incredibly insightful 👍🏿
The politics of Reagan are felt today in very negative ways. Large, controlling corporate entities, elimination of unions for workers (taking away collective bargaining, so no voice) and Trump loves this. Remember, Reagan was an actor and so is Trump.
16:48 he make "social chaos" sound really nice.
I am soooooo happy that one of my favorite political UA-camrs brought the OG Thom Hartmann on! I don’t think he gets enough attention from left UA-cam.
Still looking for a definition of neoliberalism that I can understand. It always seemed like an oxymoron to me I have decided that this should have done it but I am just incapable of understanding.
I think that's a great vision to sum up neoliberalism, a giant real world oxymoron.
Over-Simplified: it's unregulated capitalism . . . the rich make their own rules. Sound familiar? It should . . .
*We're soaking in it.*
In this recent clip from Thom Hartmann's show, he gives 5 highlights of neoliberalism. ua-cam.com/video/UY7auzazLPU/v-deo.html
Just look up Liberalism and recognize that "neo" just means new.
Liberalism was an ideology formed by men that was in a class above workers, but weren't part of the noble class. They had nothing against an elite as a concept, they just didn't want it to be exclusive for the noble class, they instead believed that the best people should be sorted out through their idea of important knowledge. Schools was kind of a sorting machine, people that got out on top, had earned their place in the elite. They never realized that the playfield wasn't even. Instead they choose to see themselves as special.
With the old liberalism they saw that the state had a function in providing certain services like schools, so that everyone would have access. In new (neo) liberalism they think that the private sector can handle anything, and that due to competition, there will be self regulations, so the state doesn't even have to regulate.
The free market concept, I don't really see as anything new in liberalism, it was just the opportunities with transport technology, communications, that changed how free the market could be. Liberal elites used to import things, as that was an elite tradition from long before, they never let that go, and it would be hard to see that they had any intention, as they never saw national borders as something that important.
Liberalism is not about equity, it is a different way of sorting out the elites. It just happened to be that they gave people public schools. And in their efforts, they started a democratization process in that it took power away from the noble class. The freedom was always for the people in the elite. The simple minded people, would be the workers that were still needed, and those people wouldn't mind since they were so simple minded.
Feminism is pretty much the same but for women. Which is a big reason why the left has problems today. They have a form of liberalism as a close allied without realizing it.
Both are problematic in that they can help groups of people some way towards a better life. But they can never provide the maximum amount of people with a good life, as it isn't part of their ideological structure, which is instead clearly focuses on lifting a small elite above the rest of men and women respectively. It was obvious in the womensmovement in the US when they distanced themselves from black women, said that they should stand back, as they would make it harder for white women to make progress.
Feminism is still more focused on more female bosses than improving life for working class women, except for any right that also affects middle and upper class women.
They even create conflicts between the sexes, in the working class, so that women and men in the working class would join in a class struggle.
Another problem with liberalists is that they own a lot of media, as the so called free press was their idea. In it though they can set the narrative. The left-right political scale, where they can make themselves out to be the balanced compromise in the middle. The GAL-TAN where they put themselves on the top again.
They form the narrative about the challenges, and possible solutions, and avoid topics that they struggle with finding any paths forward in, that does not benefit the elite. They can often coin loaded terms that then get used even by left media, as they are so established that people don't understand what the left is talking about even if they use a neutral term. And they fight the left, hard. It is a right wing ideology, after all... just a different one from the conservativism.
So the new (neo) part is just a bit of changes at the edges. Probably mostly defined as something different by those that did not see the issues with liberalism and thought that the wave of liberalism that took hold of the higher offices was something different than what liberalism alway was.
But it gets really confusing in the US, as liberals and liberalism is used to mean something else than the actual political movement it was formed as and still serves in the role as. Coporate democrats and coporate republicans are the liberals. They are the elites, that most of them got there without lineage from a noble family.
The term neoliberasm is confusing because I see Orban and Reagan as more like authoritarian monopolistic corporatism. We could get better representation if we could get rid of gerrymandering.
Ronald Reagan is scum even though I voted for him back in the day. He said anyone from anywhere in the world can come to this country and become an American.
Education will not necessarily help fight the aggressive capitalist ideas (misconceptions and lies) that help support billionaire's greed, considering how much is spent to get those ideas into our minds in the first place!
Critical Thinking. It's like nails on a chalkboard to a conservative.
Turn it up!
Good point, corporations are free to go anywhere in the world however Americans are not. To emigrate to another country from the US requires a lot of money to get residency which most Americans do not have, so they are not free to leave.
Thom needs more eyes on his channel! He does great work and really knows the historical context of politics. But his UA-cam channel gets very small numbers.
great interview
I love to see David and Thom together in this important program!!
If you're not already, I highly recommend becoming a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann Program on UA-cam.
Reaganism was largely promoting ignorance.
Tax them at 99%.
I always associated the term "neoliberalism" as emerging during the mid-late eighties when traditional liberalism kind of hit the skids (think Mondale), people who were wedded to the goals of traditional liberalism, but not necessarily the methods used by traditional liberals. Think Gary Hart or, to an extent, Bill Clinton.
pretty much the only change was allowing for private schools to take over. Liberalism has always been an ideology that has been for an elite. It never cared much about national borders.
It wasn't aboout freedom and equal opportunity. It was about sorting out who they thought belonged to the elite, and remove the mandatory noble heritage to reach the elite.
In their struggle to achieve that, they gave people public schooling. And it helped spark a democratization process.
I'm not sure who coined the term, if it was people who were on the left, but thought they were liberals, but did not like the liberal wave, because they rightfully did not see their place in it, but that was because they were actually left, or if it was by the liberals themselves that wanted a new term, to market themselves better.
Hi David, thanks for having Thom on and ps we miss you on Direct TV ❤
I think the period before Reagan and Thatcher perhaps knew some excesses (like strikes paralyzing society for weeks) and a lot of wild grass was cut off and served to feed Neoliberalism for a while. Corporations knew the government was no longer on the side of society but on theirs. This fueled optimism and trust. That's why it worked for a while is my gut feeling (no economist) but one might wonder what other option would have been much better. What was really going on??
David Stockman said in "Triumph of Politics (Over Policy)" that Reagan didn't recognize a distinction between personal and corporate income tax. Reagan was stuck in the Hollywood mindset that actors stop working for the year after two movies to avoid entering a higher tax bracket, and didn't understand that, unlike individuals, corporations can reinvest in themselves to reduce their tax burden.
Wow. Just ordered his book. That comparison he made at the end. this is wild.
Love Thom Hartmann.
Excellent interview,David. I’m going to read this book.
Let me recover from what I just heard "a higher tax rate is an incentive to invest, because business expenses are tax deductible". And then Hartmann agreeing with it.
I listened to those comments a couple times wondering if I had taken crazy pills. Plenty of fine commentary in the interview, but clearly they have a weak understanding of corporate finance.
I am super excited! Great interview as always! I just bought the book I will have it on Tuesday. Thank you David 😀
NOTE: Women did not burn bras; GIRDLES were rejected.
Bras give support while girdles constrict. Betty Friedan, in the 1980s warned against the metaphoric girdle that blinds the eyes.
I could have listen to another hour of this conversation and still felt like it wasn't enough.
If taxes are too high then how did these billionaires pile up billions in assets? It is a simple question but just try to get a billionaire to give that question a straight answer.
The inflation we're seeing now is a direct result of the soaring oil prices. In this civilization oil is the key commodity. Now, the environment cannot take much more co2, and remain habitable for us. It's almost as if we're at a tipping point on a number of fronts. These problems could all be solved with a transition to renewable energy - solar, and wind.
The answer to why the markets are not just falling apart at all the bad news from fed and economy now is psychological.
Anyone who has had a bad marriage know the feeling these people losing the goose that laid the golden egg spread her wings and fly away.
No matter it was ill gotten gains or she cheated on you or you cheated on her in the marriage or the pet project you had going became a bad venture, you just could not let go as your insides became a world of pain and anguish.
So now those ones who profitted greatly are going to have to come back to earth.
It is denial floating the markets.
Next when reality hits and they do lose all they hoarded at our expense, great sorrow and regret as the truth sinks in while these fake markets sink no longer able to stand under the great weight of corruption it has operated under.
We can all win if we let party lines go and fight for the truth.
We cant win if we stay divided and let those continue to use us like sheep to be fleeced.
If we stay this or that and cannot come together under truth and honor we will crash and burn with them
Unfortunately, the people that should read Thom's book or even listen to this video are not going to...
"Richer than the pharaohs".
"Taxes encourage investment". Exactly why we used to buy houses back in the days that we could afford them. Income spent on rent is taxable.
I'd be more interested to know how Hartman proposes taxing investment wealth, since an income tax wouldn't have much effect. It's also simplistic to say that billionaire's "don't buy more jeans" so don't benefit the economy. Doesn't their investment provide the capital that helps the economy grow?
I’m Canadian so, since we have parties named both “Liberal” and “Conservative,” I find myself having to preface any discussion that involves either of those two terms and their “neo-“ prefixes.
A big difference between Canada and the USA is that we find the equation between Liberal and Left inaccurate to the point of being wholly false, whereas in the US, the term “liberal” is almost always associated with socialism (which many low-brows in both counties equate with communism). But one similarity is the fact that conservative parties in both nations have moved so far to the right that they aren’t conservative anymore. Nomenclature isn’t that important in this respect in the USA because the term “conservative” or “Tory” (a term Canadian conservatives proudly call themselves) was shunned as colonially British, and “Republican” replaced them just like “Episcopalian” replaced “Anglican,” the Church of England. Nevertheless, the traditional definition of conservatism is grievously challenged by the shift to the right ever since Reagan kicked off the neo-right “revolution,” culminating in “The End of History,” but finding an aphelion shortly after 9/11 and decline ever since.
I call today’s nominal conservative parties “neo-right” because they are not really conservative at all and can’t very well be called, as they once were, “NeoCons.” The concern is that many genuinely conservative voters still don’t get that their respective parties have been usurped by globalizing neoliberalism in service of stateless corporatocracy -that is, out to hobble democratic sovereignty and undermine nations’ capacity to tax and regulate private profit.
Many real conservatives are moderate, right-of-centre citizens who have, since the 40-year neo-right arc began, gradually moved away from their nominally-and nominal-conservative parties. Those who remain with the nominal conservative ship as it sails towards the edge of its passengers’ flat earth defensively call the centre-right they’ve abandoned “the left.” We’ve seen how vicious neo-right rhetoric has become as it begins to suffer throes nearing the end of its arc. No sane person wants to be so-targeted, so there’s probably a much bigger faction of erstwhile conservatives who keep quite about their position-and that has the effect of slowing the process of aborting the neo-right movement (I for one consider it irredeemable) and creating a new conservative party that rejects malignant neoliberalism. I’m not conservative myself, but I believe partisan balance is a good thing.
We Canadians have bonafide socialist parties in the federal parliament and most provincial assemblies. Most of us (I am a member of the socialist New Democratic Party) laugh when Americans call liberals “socialist” or “left” because, for us, Liberals are centrist and, since the neo-right movement succeeded in moving the entire set of parties rightward on left-right spectrum, have occupied philosophical territory on the centre-right which the Conservative Party of Canada has abandoned as it, just like the tRumpublican party, sails ever closer to the edge.
There’s a reason why the Liberals have governed Canada far more times than the Conservatives (the NDP has governed several provinces but never the federal government): it’s called ‘campaigning on the left and governing on the right.’ Today’s federal government is a Liberal minority which must be supported by the NDP (the second such alliance in a row since 2015 when the 9year-old CPC government was defeated). Thus “Dippers” like me rather see Liberalism as a kind of liberal-conservative party (indeed, Canada’s first federal government was so-named) and not liberal in the classic, 19th century sense. But neither is the Liberal Party “neoliberal” because of its longstanding parliamentary relationship with the NDP (the NDP was created in 1961 and supported two Liberal minorities in the early 60s, the alliances implementing in universal public healthcare). But Liberal voters-who, btw, are very loyal-don’t mind just as long as the party is united (the post Jean Chrétien Liberals effectively punched themselves out of the running in a massive schism which allowed the CPC to govern by default, its first two governments being only minorities and its only majority being its last. This happened because many Liberal voters simply stayed home until it got sorted-and the CPC was soon after defeated).
Many Dippers disapprove of the general shift rightward-of their own party, that is. Well, near’s I can tell, we’ve moved, at most, into centre-left territory the Liberals have abandoned as they pursue CPC-abandoned territory right of centre. But we’re still essentially a leftist party, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-public services, and pro-important public enterprises. Politically involved people are getting so sensitive these days.
The confusion on both sides of the border is about what is conservative, not what is liberal or socialist (even if Americans tend to get the Canadian left and centre-left wrong). Thing is, we all know what conservative is supposed to be and many can see what the dilemma is for the partisan-right at this time. The problem, I think, is that a lot of moderate Tories don’t see it yet -or at least are in denial that their veteran parties have been ruined by globalizing neoliberalism-or the “neo-right.” Everything from now on will deal with this -uh-let’s just call it a “transitional phase.”
Pray that it ends sooner than later. We all got big challenges that need all hands on deck.
Reagan just employed a CIA PSYOP that was first rolled out in Argentina under Nixon and called it “supply side economics.” To this day there is a major spread in economic equality in Argentina !!!
This is awesome
Thom Hartmann is spot on as usual.
I hope you don't take this wrong David, but the reason I like your channel is that I view you as a younger, less learned version of Thom. And I'm hoping you keep doing what you do and keep learning, to someday carry on that torch (That torch being, informed and honest commentary with a liberal dose of integrity)
Pakman and Hartmann, The only two real menn!
Epic crossover 🔥🔥🔥
Hamilton's trade policy was from the Tudor plan adopted after Sir Thomas of Wales took out Richard the 3rd which begat Tudors and protestantism from UK to USA.
I am to the left of Keynesianism, but Keynesianism has won over the majority of Democrats, and even a few Republicans like John Kasich who supports the basic policies. The right wing propaganda against Keynes i don’t think is sustainable because it is generally non-sense propaganda that even MAGA rejects in favor of protectionism. So Keynesianism has a chance of building momentum. I support Varoufakis’s ideas which goes one step beyond social democracy. What I realistically wish for is a shift to the left where the Right are Keynesian and left advocate for Varoufakis’s policies. I don’t think this is unrealistic as most Republicans actually want their Social Security checks for their parents and grandparents. To “make America great again” is really a restoration of Keynesianism but they have talking heads who tell them differently.
Let me add this from vaguely related note from over the pond:
While I find Varoufakis economic policies interesting, his foreign policy is downright atrocious and, as I see it, dangerous.
For years he has - like many Greeks across the political spectrum, but particularly towards the extremes - echoed and amplified pro-Russian and anti-American as well as anti-German propaganda and this also continues to this day.
Clothing such vile bigotry under the mantle of supposed antiimperialism and antifascism makes me disdain him even more.
At any rate, I don't think that the right can realistically return to Keynesianism in the U.S. any time soon because opposition to it has become to entrenched into their identity.
Neoliberalism is almost as bad as “neoconservativism”. Low taxes is conservatism.
Claiming that diversity is a goal (rather than a natural outgrowth of focusing on equal opportunity and excellence) and deciding that prejudice is the most central issue through which the entire world must be viewed is a big problem.
Very good information. Very good interview
If corporations are deemed "people" too, then why should they not be taxed and their international movements be governed as such ? Reagan wasn't the Great Communicator. He was the Great Bullshitter, who probably barely comprehended the nonsense he was pitching. Hated him from day 1.
Technology may not be as agnostic as your guest might think. In fact, it might be responsible for many of the problems we face to today because 'neo liberalism' can be built into Technology, and Technology can be used reinforce neoliberalism either through data , infrastructure or the products themselves.
The rise of the new right couldn't have happened without Technology and the use of big data. IBM once again playing a proud role in this.
Very informative segment. I will have to read that book.
Thom is a treasure.
Love Thom Hartmann could listen to him all day.
The neoliberalism dynamic is interesting, but the real reason for the decline in the middle class in the US, jobs being shipped overseas, is that labor in the US was opened up to international competition in the 1970s, as were companies and management on a hyper scale. US labor productivity in general was lower than overseas, so the jobs went to the cheapest source as a free economy would dictate. Labor unions just made the work force more rigid and accelerated that move. However, companies and management greeted the global challenge and excelled in a few markets creating the global leaders that exist today. Unions are not a panacea for labor, and probably actually hurt laborers with the way the unions are set up now. To replace unions, companies could be forced to provide a reasonable share of stock to employees, who are creating the economic value, and then let the employees decided representation on the boards, etc.
Why do I get the feeling Thom and David could be father and son?
they're more like homosexual lovers ejaculating
Bucky Fuller suggested we would become s leisure nation
I watch you both and thanks for covering the news That typically makes me want to vomit.
David, sir, please have Thom and Professor Wolf on the show (if possible) more often. Dissecting hate mail, gets nauseating after awhile. We all get that conservatives are sadistic sociopaths and psychopaths -- it's their modus operandi.