I seem to recall that the particular survey which showed a great political divide between men and women was a self-reported survey, and that if you actually probe the same class of people on particular political issues, their responses are much closer to each other. While it may be the case that young men are more likely to label themselves as conservative, it seems that on individual policies, the divide is not so great. This is much like how Republicans hated Obamacare, but when you ask them about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most of these Republicans supported them.
The problem is that a distressing number of people have a poor grasp of what candidates and parties stand for and vote in a way that contradicts their own beliefs and interests.
@@tooltime9901 - 100% agree, I think the main point of your video stands, and it's up to us to educate people about that, because clearly they don't understand these basic policy differences.
Always got to love when ever the "roaring 20's" is left out of the conversation. I made a comment a few months back about how we got to where we are now and the youtuber I was commenting on their video for, was like "ya, what astonishes me about American history is the total swinging back and forth". We had the progressive era; Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and then Wilson. The biggest problem with the progressive era at the time [other then the obvious like prohibition] which was a reaction to the gilded age, was the fact that the progressive/democrat party was the one more willing to enter into wars. So by the end of WW1 and the fall out of Woodrow Wilson, what happened?! They voted for 3 pro big business, massively corrupt presidents; Harding, Coolidge, and then Hoover. All of which resulted in the great depression. The fact is.....Ronald Reagan's favorite president was Calvin Coolidge. Harding was basically seen as a "return to normalcy" after WW1 and Wilson. The progressive era was dead. DEAD...and where did Reagan get "Voodoo" "Reagnomics" from...it wasn't from Coolidge, it came from the guy Coolidge got it from. Harding, one of the most corrupt big business presidents ever. Harding used the metaphor of the "Horse and sparrows" You overfeed the horse and the sparrows will eat the waste. The roaring 20's was exactly the same as the 80's and 2000's. A boom and then bust cycle. Like literally, almost every single thing we saw in the great recession of the 80's, and the great great recession of the 2000's; predatory lending, housing bubbles, banks foreclosing, etc. In 1926 we had the "Great Florida boom/housing bubble" which was identical to the housing bubble of the 2000's, and the S&L crisis of the 1980's. I mean, it's hilarious because the economy started to sink DURING Calvin Coolidge's presidency, while he was still in office. The Florida housing bubble occurred in 1926. The same year 950 banks began to fail. Hoover was also Calvin's main policy advisor. So Harding, then Calvin...but Hoover?! Hoover got all the blame. At least from a historical mainstream context. So America went from the gilded age [big big business], to the progressive era, to big business again, and then a new progressive era; FDR style politics and it stayed this way for 30 or more years till the 70's. You had LBJ, who was basically Woodrow Wilson, and while many felt disappointment with Nixon, there was a sense of "maybe some normality will be set in"...and what did Nixon do?! He did price controls [which were bad and I am against price controls]. He created the EPA. Nixon was a slight throwback to the 1950's Eisenhower, and Eisenhower continued the FDR influence during the 50's. In fact the rich were taxed at 92%. And you missed something else Peter...The powell memo [which might as well of been written by Princess Morbucks from the powerpuff girls] and the book The crisis of democracy. The book is basically about how terrible democracy is and how democracy is a threat and big business and the government should mix to fight this, and the powell memo was a right wing big business diatribe and a total plot to turn the U.S into a new gilded age. Where the 1% owned everything and the overwhelming majority of people were barely making any money to survive and living in poverty. So anyway, the author of the powell memo Lewis Powell conned his way and got elected to the supreme court by Nixon and from there he began to dismantle the democratic process. Powell is the reason for why it's legal for politicians to take bribes. He was the guy who said "big businesses are people and money is free speech" So ya, great video.
You are right that there was a lot I missed, but you got to start somewhere. To use a Football metaphor, there are two teams running toward different end zones, and some people seem to be confused about which end zone is which. They think maybe giving the other team a first down would be a good idea. You have to correctly orient them to what the fuck is even going on in the game. layers of detail come in time.
@@tooltime9901 Agreed. But I am always so full of information and so OCD and so full of my self it's like "How can I leave anything out?" But I agree. it's just that everyone seems to forget the 1920's and the origin of this. I never ever see anybody talking about Harding and the "horse and sparrow" laise'faire capitalism "Give all the money to the rich and it will trickle down" And to me it sounds like such an important time period more then any other. Because not only was this the origin, but the fall out. FDR and Harry Truman, etc. Republicans became synonymous with the great depression. And it's always funny when ever I try and look at videos on "What caused the great depression" and they always say "well economist can't agree" and "We don't really know" and I am like REALLY?! Are you confused about the 2000's financial crisis too?! Because it was a literal f**king REPEAT, except the great depression was obviously a lot worse for many obvious reasons. But the reason I am making this comment is. You said "You don't have to go to college to learn this stuff" Exactly....I never went to college and I've been educating my self on this stuff for a while now, because I am such a history buff and because it's so fascinating and informing. I do want to ask though....the whole SJW wokeism of the 2010's. You had for instance Anita Sarkeesian's boss vacationing on his father's private island. A lot of these SJW types are total elites. Wouldn't you agree that this movement did a lot of damage in terms of the left? Getting rid of class struggle. Totally divorcing class struggle from leftism and instead introducing this obsessive "race and gender"? All of 2010 I kept going "WHAT ABOUT CLASS?! WHAT ABOUT UNIONS?! WHAT ABOUT THE WORKING MAN?!" and instead on the left it was all, ALL about race and gender. They TOOK class out of left politics. The "bernie bro" narrative and saying "Bernie is weak on all this woke stuff. Don't vote for Bernie" Virtue signaling on the left. It all comes across as false consciousness. All of this "modern left" stuff just feels like a right wing psyop. That is how 2010's into the 2020's left politics feels like to me. Like "Let's just pretend i was a right winger and I wanted to destroy the left. WHAT WOULD I DO?....CULTURE WAR BS. Divorce class consciousness from leftism. Inject political correctness. Replace class with race and gender. Start defund the police, etc." and if that is the case, then shouldn't leftist who are pro union, pro workers rights, pro bernie sanders, want a FDR revolution, shouldn't we be attacking those within who are damaging us?! Of course we are then called racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. So people are shot down and the left never ever gains balance and the right wing and corporate republicans keep winning but how much longer can we play this "lesser or two evils" stuff?! So right now, if Harris wins...I am terrified of what will happen in 2028. Because I have very little faith with Harris. Because clearly it isn't enough to gain back trust and Harris is gonna be a corporatist and i keep going "something has to break". I mean, Biden has been the most progressive president in my life time. I was born in 87, so that includes Reagan. Unions are on the rise. In fact the teamsters got a lot from Biden and yet still they won't officially vote for him? And 30% are for Biden and 50% are for Trump? Just makes zero, zero sense...and people still hated Biden and his approval was low. Even if he wasn't cognitively declined, I still think he's be super low. Harris is stronger then Biden and it's still a close race. So what the hell?! And where does this leave us? The left? So I feel TOTALLY, totally marginalized. I know several who say "I feel politically homeless" I don't. I feel marginalized.
The (not really) AI explosion speaks to all of this, I think. I saw someone on Threads post this quote: "The underlying purpose of AI is for the wealthy to access skill, whilst removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth."
All else being equal, the business owners tend to want to pay as little as possible for as much work as possible. Laborers tend to want to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible. But it's not as simple as that because that business owner is in competition with other business owners for the best people in the qualified labor pool and labor gets to compare what they are offering. Then, to make up for the remaining power difference between business owners and labor, there can form free associative labor unions who can increase the power of labor through collective bargaining. That's all market mechanisms. They work well and have vastly improved our standard of living. I've seen people who just focus on that first sentence as if it's something profound saying stupid things like, "The only reason they don't pay their employees ten cents an hour and hire eight-year-olds is because of laws." It's asinine. When the labor movement started taking off, it was the state who sent in the police to break up strikes, pickets, and union meetings with dogs, hoses, and billy-clubs. The movement made important gains for labor in SPITE of the state, which spread organically through various industries; and years before the state came in on the back end to hamfistedly support them. Somehow, they manage to take all the credit in the minds of far too many people. "Rich people good, poor people bad." The worst villains in Rand's novels were rich and powerful. You are not confronting her philosophy at all. Your understanding of monetarism is really poor. You think free trade only helps big business? Protectionism helps particular big business players and that's about it. It tends to make most people worse off. Trump is in favor of heavy protectionism and trade wars because he's economically illiterate. Did you happen to take any econ courses in college? RE: Tariffs: "Businesses are going to pass that cost along to the customer." YES! I wish you had that in mind when you were talking about corporate taxes just a few minutes earlier. You seem to be in favor of protectionism, but not tariffs. Do you just want to make potentially competing foreign goods contraband? What did you have in mind?
You don't have to go to college to learn all this. You just have to own a business. I hate to say it, but the only way the US can compete with China is through automation. Kids these days need to be learning robotics, programming and science at an early age if we want to be relevant in the next 30 years. We also have to find a way to get along with each other or we are certainly doomed.
unless you work for a family business and are a member of that family.....your job doesn't care about you and durning tax time you are listed as a liability under the category assets & liability
If you don't watch any of the rest of this video at least watch the part at 10:47 for TT's expert analysis of the Democratic party shift to the right. This is a concept that people have a hard time understanding but he explains it perfectly!
Let me guess: you blame global inflation on Biden because that's what your echo chamber keeps telling you and you lack the curiosity to actually understand why things happen. And your poor grasp of politics and economics makes you think that presidents control the economy.
Yep, same way they ain't black if they don't vote democrat - pretending to be the party that will help black people, while pedaling the racist victim narrative
@@giauscaesar8047 why I didn't bother after an assumption was made that I live in a Republican echo chamber, both parties are lying deceiving scumbags, there are no saints, they're all corrupt and shake hands behind the scenes
Hey. Firstly as a poorly educated, low income worker, thanks for the education. 😄 As a European, I guess I'm kind of surprised what you outlined here is the democratic position? Here in Europe the argument that poor people should pull themselves up from their bootstraps and that if they're not happy about the pay they receive that it's their fault for not being skilled would be considered a fairly far-right perspective... Similarly the argument that foreigners are needed to work crappy jobs so US citizens have lower prices would considered extremely right-wing if not bordering on racist. Generally here we see it as the responsibility of state to ensure all workers are well paid (regardless of migration status) and we support immigration because we want to bring in the best and brightest from around the world (ideally more skilled and better paid than the domestic population, not less). I guess the bit I'm most confused about though (and was hoping you could educate me on) is why you believe the costs associated with tariffs would be passed on to consumers, but taxes wouldn't be? Here in Europe we generally have higher prices, but that's largely because we have higher taxes, a trade block which enforces tariffs, and regulation requiring workers are paid decent wages. I understand this means higher prices, but because poor people are earning more this is really only a net cost to middle-class people. Paying people working crap jobs more does cost more, but I'm not sure why that's a left-wing argument in the US? At least it wouldn't be here. I'm also wondering why you say the republican party is the party of the rich? Isn't it true that more billionaires support the democratic party or am I wrong about that? If that is true though why do you think that is? I guess I don't understand the dynamics of US politics well enough to understand why in the US the party of the rich would be mostly supported by poor, uneducated workers and the left-wing party is supported mostly by educated people and the rich? Again, that's a reverse of what you tend to see in Europe. Anyway, nice to see you making videos again!
"poor people should pull themselves up from their bootstraps" - That is a center-right idea in the US. And not really what I am saying. I am saying they should not expect the entire economy to be drastically overhauled so they can have high wages with zero effort. "the argument that foreigners are needed to work crappy jobs so US citizens have lower prices" - I am not making an argument for it, I am saying that is the way it is. I am saying the outcome of a policy many of them are cheering for would not be what they think. And is it really the case that Europe is not getting much of its consumer goods from China? "Generally here we see it as the responsibility of state to ensure all workers are well paid" The Republican party does not, and has never thought that. I know this may be hard to grasp, but some people in the US are seriously confused as to which team is which and which goal they are shooting at. My whole point is that people want to support the wrong team. "the costs associated with tariffs would be passed on to consumers, but taxes wouldn't be?" A tariff is a tax. You said Europe has "regulation requiring workers are paid decent wages." The US does not really have that. The only way taxes are passed on specifically to consumers is if they are sales taxes, which are mostly state and local. "isn't it true that more billionaires support the democratic party or am I wrong about that?" - You are wrong about that, but more to the point, Republicans are pro-business. You say you don't understand the dynamics of US politics, but you also reference common assumptions in Europe. The piece you seem to be missing is that Democrats largely agree with those assumptions, and Republicans do not. Trump has put a fake populist gloss on some things, and that has fooled people. Republicans are far right by European standards. It is not totally the case that the poor support the Dems and the educated support Republicans. It’s more like those are the most notable shifts in recent US politics, but they are far from total. Plenty of wealthy and educated people still support the Republicans. The US is also far more religious than most Europeans can understand. And Evangelical churches have been
@@tooltime9901 "I am saying they should not expect the entire economy to be drastically overhauled so they can have high wages with zero effort." - I feel like there is a problem with this way of thinking though. It makes the assumption that most of these people can learn skills to increase their wages through a bit of individual effort, but I don't think this is an accurate narrative for what really happened. What happened when the coal jobs died and entire rust belt cities were economically destroyed? Liberals/Democrats didn't seem to care and basically told them "learn to code" which was never a realistic solution for most of these workers. I never heard Democrats (or anyone for that matter) tell these people "yes, coal will go away, but the government is going to put you to work rebuilding our infrastructure with new, good paying jobs". Again, the sentiment was "too bad, learn to code". It's why oil and gas workers often vote Republican. Because that party supports their livelihoods. Why can't Democrats say "we're going to replace your fracking job with an infrastructure job"? A "green new deal" of sorts. In other words, I don't want to point at Americans and say "the economy isn't going to change, so get better skills!" because I feel like that led to getting Trump. I think the message should be "let's provide workers with the ability to make a decent living with the skills they already have through union support, government policy and jobs programs. If we have to eliminate certain jobs like fracking or coal, let's replace them with other infrastructure jobs that don't require massive reskilling".
Note the fact that other people in these comments who disagree with me offer actual substance. But I guess your galaxy brain is too busy building rockets for Elon.
@@tooltime9901 Well I did ask you a question I don't know if you actually saw it. But why not scroll down & attempt to answer I would be most interested in your response.
I've been trying to figure out what the GOP and the workers have in common for ages, 'til it occurred to me: the GOP have to do whatever the bosses say, too. Simpatico! (That and easily incited prejudices of course.)
You're missing 1970s stagflation from your narration about developments in economic paradigms. Which challenged classical Keynesianism and birthed multiple splinter traditions. (Today economists are so eclectic that these traditions barely mean anything.) That o.g. Keynesian idea of running a surplus in economic upturns and engaging in deficit spending during economic downturns was never quite followed, it was just a compelling theory to manage the business cycle. In fact, the sociological infeasibility of a political order consistently following this proposal is a huge flaw with this method of managing the business cycle. Ignoring the sociological infeasibility of economic proposals is, unfortunately, a blind spot common to centre-leftists. Milton Friedman was laissez-faire, but not as laissez-faire as you're portraying. (For example, he believed in something close to UBI, and thought there was a role for governments to control the business cycle: through fairly simple monetary policies.) His monetarist tradition finds tension with an inherently heterogenous constellation of free market factions. Your narration of the Reagan era, and conflating Reaganite thought with free market thought simpliciter (while trying to tie a necessary connection to Ayn Rand) is an ideologically one-dimensional casting that is beneath you. Tax cuts are one spoke on a whole wheel of free market proposals that envision a systematic redesign of our entire economic order: one which, in theory, would benefit the lower classes the most. You are free to disagree with it, but simplifying it into a 'trickle-down economics' idea is just dishonest. Trying to cast Trump as anything adjacent to this tradition is laugh-out-loud hilarious. (Even given your correct take that Trump otherwise heralded an economic populist reimagination of GOP ideology.) The arch-protectionist who wants to start trade wars is derivative of Milton Friedman? Because of tax cuts? Be serious now. There are many free marketeers who are endlessly critical of Reagan, and Rand, especially from the mutualist and Austrian traditions. You could not even explain free market socialists like early Proudhon, Thomas Hodgskin, Benjamin Tucker, or more recently Kevin Carson with this model. (And free market thought was associated with and aligned with 19th century socialism long before it was ever adopted for the purpose of capitalist apologetics.) You mentioned workers getting the fair product of their labour. Read Benjamin Tucker's “Should Labour Be Paid or Not,” one of the free market socialists I mentioned. Or Thomas Hodgskin's “Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital.” Labour getting its due reward has been a long-standing rallying cry of free market thought. You're basically pinning everything about the post-WWII economic boom and “The Golden Age of Capitalism” on a centre-leftist economic paradigm. One which was not even consistently followed. This narrative ignores conditions like the U.S. being a large investor in the recovery of Europe during that post-WWII era, and then having to massively adapt once European and Asian industries became internationally competitive. Not to mention the effects of the Cold War; and rapid technological innovations that spawned the information age. You take on a lecturing tone while giving an ultra-generic centre-leftist take that I've heard a thousand times. (Update: After having finished the whole video, I see that you've mentioned some of these facts, but they still complicate your narrative. 'Things were nice for America and then came Reaganism and tax cuts' is patently ridiculous *especially* in virtue of your own frame of reference.) And, I must say, trying to push an egalitarian mindset while privileging the wages of world-historically rich first-worlders over labourers from foreign countries is insane. (Regarding your complaints about outsourcing and hostile comments toward free trade.) You are quite literally part-and-parcel with the capitalist extractivists if you want economic protectionism. The world is not nearly as simple as you think, and your arrogant outgroup illiteracy is astounding.
Continued analysis from my primary post: Romanticizing a high modernist era that created suburban sprawl and the Jane Jacobs esque 'Death of the American City' is crazy. People getting handed out loans left and right to buy homes in low-density spaces was a bad idea in the 1950s, and it is a bad idea today. Unlimited YIMBYism, which would slash the cost of living in dramatic ways, is a far better proposal. Nothing gets built because the costs of building anything are prohibitively expensive in state-backed ways. And this market-oriented proposal would do far better to help the poor and disadvantaged - such as, for example, myself, a literally disabled person; despite your ideological attempts to cast free market thought as an ideology for rich and capitalistic people. Let us consider the exact scope of what restricts development in the United States and Canada. It's not just zoning and rezoning hurdles. Those are significant, of course, and abolishing zoning laws would do much to alleviate the housing crisis. There are barriers like building codes and building permits. Fire and safety code regulations. Environmental regulations that include lengthy assessments that often involve a demand for remediation before development can proceed. Historic preservation is another factor, depending on the location: builders are subject to unreasonable restrictions and friction-inducing evaluation from historical review boards. All sorts of land use restrictions further hinder building. Contractor licensing and real estate development permits further increase the costs of development and choke the supply of likely builders. Impact fees and minimum infrastructure development requirements (e.g. upgrading utilities and sewer systems) render even more undue burdens. Parking minimum requirements are part-and-parcel with this. Affordable housing requirements and subsidies for meeting these requirements pervert incentives and misallocate capital: all based on not understanding that building an excess of luxury goods can depress the costs of non-luxury goods. developers consistently face frivolous lawsuits over development, as well as NIMBY public consultations that increase developer time cost and ultimately choke supply. Laws that require certain amounts of accessibility features in multifamily and commercial properties further hinder development. Energy efficiency requirements are another meme tacked onto developers. Insurance requirements further ratchet up the default capital outlays required to build. and so on. Many of these restrictions have 'good intentions,' but ensuring high quality housing means little when so many people are on the streets. Furthermore, there are significant ways in which non-corporate development is restricted as well. For example: we don't have proper slums. Instead, we actually have homeless people. part of this is because we destroy homeless shanty towns, even when they are advanced and well-coordinated, every chance we get. Such as homeless people living in caves along the Tuolumne River, even featuring their own chimneys. Progressives and other busybodies cite health and safety issues with such makeshift infrastructure. but they don't have a sociologically serious understanding of these things. It takes time and effort for low-quality efforts to crystallize into high-quality, robust institutions. If we didn't systematically stop non-corporate development from the ground up, exiting the formal housing market wouldn't entail homelessness. It would mean that you move to shanty towns and slums that are continuously developing their infrastructural capacity. The upshot of this is that housing is not nearly as inelastic as most people say: there *can* be competitive choice between the corporate housing market and a myriad of other housing alternatives. The binary choice between professional real state and homelessness is an artificial condition created by state micromanagement of the economy. In sum, the highly inelastic nature of housing is an artificial, state-backed condition. And there are a thousand invisible ways that construction costs are increased by state intervention. Which NIMBYs don't mention when pointing out that mainstream developers seek decent profit margins and claim they only have an incentive to build when rents sufficiently increase. Your narrative regarding unions is a little limited, but I won't get into it. I will briefly say that labour laws and state-backed unions have acted as a managerial compromise with corporate interests. While illegalizing wildcat union tactics that could have sowed the mechanisms of industrial warfare and created far more extreme forms of collective bargaining. And notice, for example, that “union busters” are violating free market principles by imposing a hyper-specific organizational form on the economy through the power of the state. To call union busting a free market proposal is a hilarious joke. This is just a microcosm of the systematic ways in which left-wing market anarchists and other free marketeers envision a laissez-faire order that defaces capital, rather than empowering it. Read Kevin Carson's “Organization Theory” for a historically, economically, and sociologically dense case for the metastatic ways in which the top-down designs of society and state-backed incentive structures are responsible for capitalist exploitation. (Not banal simplicities like “the profit motive” or “wanting to keep the costs of labour low.”) You would do well to familiarize yourself with what other people actually believe, rather than wallow in intellectual arrested development and latch onto the most generic centre-leftist narration of economic history imaginable. Your video presented itself as saving people from having to pay for a college education. That's true if it means: 'a centre-leftist smear on economics 101 and a simple awareness of 20th century history.' (Even the heavy restriction to the 20th century is a problem. Hence fantastical illusions like calling free trade a Milton Friedman era idea. It is, in fact, a successor to mercantilism. You are surely familiar with Ricardo's Law of Association and disputes over the Corn Laws and so forth? Free trade opposes artificial economic privilege and wealth disparity at its core.)
No politician is the friend of anyone outside a company or government.
Anyone who calls themselves your leader is your enemy.
I will never trust either party. They are not for anyone but themselves.
i am sad george carlin died. he died a couple decades too early
I seem to recall that the particular survey which showed a great political divide between men and women was a self-reported survey, and that if you actually probe the same class of people on particular political issues, their responses are much closer to each other. While it may be the case that young men are more likely to label themselves as conservative, it seems that on individual policies, the divide is not so great. This is much like how Republicans hated Obamacare, but when you ask them about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most of these Republicans supported them.
The problem is that a distressing number of people have a poor grasp of what candidates and parties stand for and vote in a way that contradicts their own beliefs and interests.
@@tooltime9901 - 100% agree, I think the main point of your video stands, and it's up to us to educate people about that, because clearly they don't understand these basic policy differences.
The Dems and the left use a lot of emotional arguments - women tend to be more affected by them than men.
Always got to love when ever the "roaring 20's" is left out of the conversation. I made a comment a few months back about how we got to where we are now and the youtuber I was commenting on their video for, was like "ya, what astonishes me about American history is the total swinging back and forth".
We had the progressive era; Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and then Wilson. The biggest problem with the progressive era at the time [other then the obvious like prohibition] which was a reaction to the gilded age, was the fact that the progressive/democrat party was the one more willing to enter into wars. So by the end of WW1 and the fall out of Woodrow Wilson, what happened?! They voted for 3 pro big business, massively corrupt presidents; Harding, Coolidge, and then Hoover. All of which resulted in the great depression. The fact is.....Ronald Reagan's favorite president was Calvin Coolidge. Harding was basically seen as a "return to normalcy" after WW1 and Wilson. The progressive era was dead. DEAD...and where did Reagan get "Voodoo" "Reagnomics" from...it wasn't from Coolidge, it came from the guy Coolidge got it from. Harding, one of the most corrupt big business presidents ever. Harding used the metaphor of the "Horse and sparrows" You overfeed the horse and the sparrows will eat the waste.
The roaring 20's was exactly the same as the 80's and 2000's. A boom and then bust cycle.
Like literally, almost every single thing we saw in the great recession of the 80's, and the great great recession of the 2000's; predatory lending, housing bubbles, banks foreclosing, etc. In 1926 we had the "Great Florida boom/housing bubble" which was identical to the housing bubble of the 2000's, and the S&L crisis of the 1980's. I mean, it's hilarious because the economy started to sink DURING Calvin Coolidge's presidency, while he was still in office. The Florida housing bubble occurred in 1926. The same year 950 banks began to fail. Hoover was also Calvin's main policy advisor. So Harding, then Calvin...but Hoover?! Hoover got all the blame. At least from a historical mainstream context.
So America went from the gilded age [big big business], to the progressive era, to big business again, and then a new progressive era; FDR style politics and it stayed this way for 30 or more years till the 70's. You had LBJ, who was basically Woodrow Wilson, and while many felt disappointment with Nixon, there was a sense of "maybe some normality will be set in"...and what did Nixon do?! He did price controls [which were bad and I am against price controls]. He created the EPA. Nixon was a slight throwback to the 1950's Eisenhower, and Eisenhower continued the FDR influence during the 50's. In fact the rich were taxed at 92%.
And you missed something else Peter...The powell memo [which might as well of been written by Princess Morbucks from the powerpuff girls] and the book The crisis of democracy.
The book is basically about how terrible democracy is and how democracy is a threat and big business and the government should mix to fight this, and the powell memo was a right wing big business diatribe and a total plot to turn the U.S into a new gilded age. Where the 1% owned everything and the overwhelming majority of people were barely making any money to survive and living in poverty. So anyway, the author of the powell memo Lewis Powell conned his way and got elected to the supreme court by Nixon and from there he began to dismantle the democratic process. Powell is the reason for why it's legal for politicians to take bribes. He was the guy who said "big businesses are people and money is free speech"
So ya, great video.
You are right that there was a lot I missed, but you got to start somewhere. To use a Football metaphor, there are two teams running toward different end zones, and some people seem to be confused about which end zone is which. They think maybe giving the other team a first down would be a good idea. You have to correctly orient them to what the fuck is even going on in the game. layers of detail come in time.
@@tooltime9901 Agreed. But I am always so full of information and so OCD and so full of my self it's like "How can I leave anything out?" But I agree. it's just that everyone seems to forget the 1920's and the origin of this. I never ever see anybody talking about Harding and the "horse and sparrow" laise'faire capitalism "Give all the money to the rich and it will trickle down" And to me it sounds like such an important time period more then any other. Because not only was this the origin, but the fall out. FDR and Harry Truman, etc. Republicans became synonymous with the great depression.
And it's always funny when ever I try and look at videos on "What caused the great depression" and they always say "well economist can't agree" and "We don't really know" and I am like REALLY?! Are you confused about the 2000's financial crisis too?! Because it was a literal f**king REPEAT, except the great depression was obviously a lot worse for many obvious reasons.
But the reason I am making this comment is. You said "You don't have to go to college to learn this stuff" Exactly....I never went to college and I've been educating my self on this stuff for a while now, because I am such a history buff and because it's so fascinating and informing.
I do want to ask though....the whole SJW wokeism of the 2010's. You had for instance Anita Sarkeesian's boss vacationing on his father's private island. A lot of these SJW types are total elites. Wouldn't you agree that this movement did a lot of damage in terms of the left? Getting rid of class struggle. Totally divorcing class struggle from leftism and instead introducing this obsessive "race and gender"? All of 2010 I kept going "WHAT ABOUT CLASS?! WHAT ABOUT UNIONS?! WHAT ABOUT THE WORKING MAN?!" and instead on the left it was all, ALL about race and gender. They TOOK class out of left politics. The "bernie bro" narrative and saying "Bernie is weak on all this woke stuff. Don't vote for Bernie" Virtue signaling on the left. It all comes across as false consciousness. All of this "modern left"
stuff just feels like a right wing psyop. That is how 2010's into the 2020's left politics feels like to me. Like "Let's just pretend i was a right winger and I wanted to destroy the left. WHAT WOULD I DO?....CULTURE WAR BS. Divorce class consciousness from leftism. Inject political correctness. Replace class with race and gender. Start defund the police, etc."
and if that is the case, then shouldn't leftist who are pro union, pro workers rights, pro bernie sanders, want a FDR revolution, shouldn't we be attacking those within who are damaging us?! Of course we are then called racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. So people are shot down and the left never ever gains balance and the right wing and corporate republicans keep winning but how much longer can we play this "lesser or two evils" stuff?! So right now, if Harris wins...I am terrified of what will happen in 2028. Because I have very little faith with Harris. Because clearly it isn't enough to gain back trust and Harris is gonna be a corporatist and i keep going "something has to break". I mean, Biden has been the most progressive president in my life time. I was born in 87, so that includes Reagan. Unions are on the rise. In fact the teamsters got a lot from Biden and yet still they won't officially vote for him? And 30% are for Biden and 50% are for Trump? Just makes zero, zero sense...and people still hated Biden and his approval was low. Even if he wasn't cognitively declined, I still think he's be super low. Harris is stronger then Biden and it's still a close race. So what the hell?! And where does this leave us? The left? So I feel TOTALLY, totally marginalized. I know several who say "I feel politically homeless" I don't. I feel marginalized.
@@Jaykilljoy-tt9tt WILSOOON!
so good to see you
The (not really) AI explosion speaks to all of this, I think. I saw someone on Threads post this quote: "The underlying purpose of AI is for the wealthy to access skill, whilst removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth."
All else being equal, the business owners tend to want to pay as little as possible for as much work as possible. Laborers tend to want to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible. But it's not as simple as that because that business owner is in competition with other business owners for the best people in the qualified labor pool and labor gets to compare what they are offering. Then, to make up for the remaining power difference between business owners and labor, there can form free associative labor unions who can increase the power of labor through collective bargaining. That's all market mechanisms. They work well and have vastly improved our standard of living.
I've seen people who just focus on that first sentence as if it's something profound saying stupid things like, "The only reason they don't pay their employees ten cents an hour and hire eight-year-olds is because of laws." It's asinine. When the labor movement started taking off, it was the state who sent in the police to break up strikes, pickets, and union meetings with dogs, hoses, and billy-clubs. The movement made important gains for labor in SPITE of the state, which spread organically through various industries; and years before the state came in on the back end to hamfistedly support them. Somehow, they manage to take all the credit in the minds of far too many people.
"Rich people good, poor people bad." The worst villains in Rand's novels were rich and powerful. You are not confronting her philosophy at all. Your understanding of monetarism is really poor. You think free trade only helps big business? Protectionism helps particular big business players and that's about it. It tends to make most people worse off. Trump is in favor of heavy protectionism and trade wars because he's economically illiterate. Did you happen to take any econ courses in college?
RE: Tariffs: "Businesses are going to pass that cost along to the customer." YES! I wish you had that in mind when you were talking about corporate taxes just a few minutes earlier. You seem to be in favor of protectionism, but not tariffs. Do you just want to make potentially competing foreign goods contraband? What did you have in mind?
You don't have to go to college to learn all this. You just have to own a business. I hate to say it, but the only way the US can compete with China is through automation. Kids these days need to be learning robotics, programming and science at an early age if we want to be relevant in the next 30 years. We also have to find a way to get along with each other or we are certainly doomed.
unless you work for a family business and are a member of that family.....your job doesn't care about you and durning tax time you are listed as a liability under the category assets & liability
😂democrats are working class “friends “, lol
Tooltime video fak yeah
Another tooltime banger
If you don't watch any of the rest of this video at least watch the part at 10:47 for TT's expert analysis of the Democratic party shift to the right. This is a concept that people have a hard time understanding but he explains it perfectly!
yet judging by these last four years as an American, I can see that Demz sure are the working class' friend for sure ;)
Let me guess: you blame global inflation on Biden because that's what your echo chamber keeps telling you and you lack the curiosity to actually understand why things happen. And your poor grasp of politics and economics makes you think that presidents control the economy.
Yep, same way they ain't black if they don't vote democrat - pretending to be the party that will help black people, while pedaling the racist victim narrative
It's the gov that sets the parameters that the market will operate in. Tooltime appears to be arguing against his own position here.
@@giauscaesar8047 why I didn't bother after an assumption was made that I live in a Republican echo chamber, both parties are lying deceiving scumbags, there are no saints, they're all corrupt and shake hands behind the scenes
Hey. Firstly as a poorly educated, low income worker, thanks for the education. 😄
As a European, I guess I'm kind of surprised what you outlined here is the democratic position? Here in Europe the argument that poor people should pull themselves up from their bootstraps and that if they're not happy about the pay they receive that it's their fault for not being skilled would be considered a fairly far-right perspective... Similarly the argument that foreigners are needed to work crappy jobs so US citizens have lower prices would considered extremely right-wing if not bordering on racist. Generally here we see it as the responsibility of state to ensure all workers are well paid (regardless of migration status) and we support immigration because we want to bring in the best and brightest from around the world (ideally more skilled and better paid than the domestic population, not less).
I guess the bit I'm most confused about though (and was hoping you could educate me on) is why you believe the costs associated with tariffs would be passed on to consumers, but taxes wouldn't be? Here in Europe we generally have higher prices, but that's largely because we have higher taxes, a trade block which enforces tariffs, and regulation requiring workers are paid decent wages. I understand this means higher prices, but because poor people are earning more this is really only a net cost to middle-class people. Paying people working crap jobs more does cost more, but I'm not sure why that's a left-wing argument in the US? At least it wouldn't be here.
I'm also wondering why you say the republican party is the party of the rich? Isn't it true that more billionaires support the democratic party or am I wrong about that? If that is true though why do you think that is? I guess I don't understand the dynamics of US politics well enough to understand why in the US the party of the rich would be mostly supported by poor, uneducated workers and the left-wing party is supported mostly by educated people and the rich? Again, that's a reverse of what you tend to see in Europe.
Anyway, nice to see you making videos again!
"poor people should pull themselves up from their bootstraps" - That is a center-right idea in the US. And not really what I am saying. I am saying they should not expect the entire economy to be drastically overhauled so they can have high wages with zero effort.
"the argument that foreigners are needed to work crappy jobs so US citizens have lower prices" - I am not making an argument for it, I am saying that is the way it is. I am saying the outcome of a policy many of them are cheering for would not be what they think. And is it really the case that Europe is not getting much of its consumer goods from China?
"Generally here we see it as the responsibility of state to ensure all workers are well paid" The Republican party does not, and has never thought that. I know this may be hard to grasp, but some people in the US are seriously confused as to which team is which and which goal they are shooting at. My whole point is that people want to support the wrong team.
"the costs associated with tariffs would be passed on to consumers, but taxes wouldn't be?" A tariff is a tax. You said Europe has "regulation requiring workers are paid decent wages." The US does not really have that. The only way taxes are passed on specifically to consumers is if they are sales taxes, which are mostly state and local.
"isn't it true that more billionaires support the democratic party or am I wrong about that?" - You are wrong about that, but more to the point, Republicans are pro-business.
You say you don't understand the dynamics of US politics, but you also reference common assumptions in Europe. The piece you seem to be missing is that Democrats largely agree with those assumptions, and Republicans do not. Trump has put a fake populist gloss on some things, and that has fooled people. Republicans are far right by European standards.
It is not totally the case that the poor support the Dems and the educated support Republicans. It’s more like those are the most notable shifts in recent US politics, but they are far from total. Plenty of wealthy and educated people still support the Republicans. The US is also far more religious than most Europeans can understand. And Evangelical churches have been
@@tooltime9901 "I am saying they should not expect the entire economy to be drastically overhauled so they can have high wages with zero effort." - I feel like there is a problem with this way of thinking though. It makes the assumption that most of these people can learn skills to increase their wages through a bit of individual effort, but I don't think this is an accurate narrative for what really happened. What happened when the coal jobs died and entire rust belt cities were economically destroyed? Liberals/Democrats didn't seem to care and basically told them "learn to code" which was never a realistic solution for most of these workers. I never heard Democrats (or anyone for that matter) tell these people "yes, coal will go away, but the government is going to put you to work rebuilding our infrastructure with new, good paying jobs". Again, the sentiment was "too bad, learn to code". It's why oil and gas workers often vote Republican. Because that party supports their livelihoods. Why can't Democrats say "we're going to replace your fracking job with an infrastructure job"? A "green new deal" of sorts. In other words, I don't want to point at Americans and say "the economy isn't going to change, so get better skills!" because I feel like that led to getting Trump. I think the message should be "let's provide workers with the ability to make a decent living with the skills they already have through union support, government policy and jobs programs. If we have to eliminate certain jobs like fracking or coal, let's replace them with other infrastructure jobs that don't require massive reskilling".
Good stuff
I don't think you have a clue.
Note the fact that other people in these comments who disagree with me offer actual substance.
But I guess your galaxy brain is too busy building rockets for Elon.
@@tooltime9901 Well I did ask you a question I don't know if you actually saw it. But why not scroll down & attempt to answer I would be most interested in your response.
You are correct. I had to fight UA-cam to get it to show it to me.
@@tooltime9901 Thank you.
I've been trying to figure out what the GOP and the workers have in common for ages, 'til it occurred to me: the GOP have to do whatever the bosses say, too. Simpatico!
(That and easily incited prejudices of course.)
You're missing 1970s stagflation from your narration about developments in economic paradigms. Which challenged classical Keynesianism and birthed multiple splinter traditions. (Today economists are so eclectic that these traditions barely mean anything.) That o.g. Keynesian idea of running a surplus in economic upturns and engaging in deficit spending during economic downturns was never quite followed, it was just a compelling theory to manage the business cycle. In fact, the sociological infeasibility of a political order consistently following this proposal is a huge flaw with this method of managing the business cycle. Ignoring the sociological infeasibility of economic proposals is, unfortunately, a blind spot common to centre-leftists.
Milton Friedman was laissez-faire, but not as laissez-faire as you're portraying. (For example, he believed in something close to UBI, and thought there was a role for governments to control the business cycle: through fairly simple monetary policies.) His monetarist tradition finds tension with an inherently heterogenous constellation of free market factions. Your narration of the Reagan era, and conflating Reaganite thought with free market thought simpliciter (while trying to tie a necessary connection to Ayn Rand) is an ideologically one-dimensional casting that is beneath you. Tax cuts are one spoke on a whole wheel of free market proposals that envision a systematic redesign of our entire economic order: one which, in theory, would benefit the lower classes the most. You are free to disagree with it, but simplifying it into a 'trickle-down economics' idea is just dishonest. Trying to cast Trump as anything adjacent to this tradition is laugh-out-loud hilarious. (Even given your correct take that Trump otherwise heralded an economic populist reimagination of GOP ideology.) The arch-protectionist who wants to start trade wars is derivative of Milton Friedman? Because of tax cuts? Be serious now. There are many free marketeers who are endlessly critical of Reagan, and Rand, especially from the mutualist and Austrian traditions. You could not even explain free market socialists like early Proudhon, Thomas Hodgskin, Benjamin Tucker, or more recently Kevin Carson with this model. (And free market thought was associated with and aligned with 19th century socialism long before it was ever adopted for the purpose of capitalist apologetics.) You mentioned workers getting the fair product of their labour. Read Benjamin Tucker's “Should Labour Be Paid or Not,” one of the free market socialists I mentioned. Or Thomas Hodgskin's “Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital.” Labour getting its due reward has been a long-standing rallying cry of free market thought.
You're basically pinning everything about the post-WWII economic boom and “The Golden Age of Capitalism” on a centre-leftist economic paradigm. One which was not even consistently followed. This narrative ignores conditions like the U.S. being a large investor in the recovery of Europe during that post-WWII era, and then having to massively adapt once European and Asian industries became internationally competitive. Not to mention the effects of the Cold War; and rapid technological innovations that spawned the information age. You take on a lecturing tone while giving an ultra-generic centre-leftist take that I've heard a thousand times. (Update: After having finished the whole video, I see that you've mentioned some of these facts, but they still complicate your narrative. 'Things were nice for America and then came Reaganism and tax cuts' is patently ridiculous *especially* in virtue of your own frame of reference.)
And, I must say, trying to push an egalitarian mindset while privileging the wages of world-historically rich first-worlders over labourers from foreign countries is insane. (Regarding your complaints about outsourcing and hostile comments toward free trade.) You are quite literally part-and-parcel with the capitalist extractivists if you want economic protectionism. The world is not nearly as simple as you think, and your arrogant outgroup illiteracy is astounding.
Continued analysis from my primary post: Romanticizing a high modernist era that created suburban sprawl and the Jane Jacobs esque 'Death of the American City' is crazy. People getting handed out loans left and right to buy homes in low-density spaces was a bad idea in the 1950s, and it is a bad idea today. Unlimited YIMBYism, which would slash the cost of living in dramatic ways, is a far better proposal. Nothing gets built because the costs of building anything are prohibitively expensive in state-backed ways. And this market-oriented proposal would do far better to help the poor and disadvantaged - such as, for example, myself, a literally disabled person; despite your ideological attempts to cast free market thought as an ideology for rich and capitalistic people. Let us consider the exact scope of what restricts development in the United States and Canada. It's not just zoning and rezoning hurdles. Those are significant, of course, and abolishing zoning laws would do much to alleviate the housing crisis. There are barriers like building codes and building permits. Fire and safety code regulations. Environmental regulations that include lengthy assessments that often involve a demand for remediation before development can proceed. Historic preservation is another factor, depending on the location: builders are subject to unreasonable restrictions and friction-inducing evaluation from historical review boards. All sorts of land use restrictions further hinder building. Contractor licensing and real estate development permits further increase the costs of development and choke the supply of likely builders. Impact fees and minimum infrastructure development requirements (e.g. upgrading utilities and sewer systems) render even more undue burdens. Parking minimum requirements are part-and-parcel with this. Affordable housing requirements and subsidies for meeting these requirements pervert incentives and misallocate capital: all based on not understanding that building an excess of luxury goods can depress the costs of non-luxury goods. developers consistently face frivolous lawsuits over development, as well as NIMBY public consultations that increase developer time cost and ultimately choke supply. Laws that require certain amounts of accessibility features in multifamily and commercial properties further hinder development. Energy efficiency requirements are another meme tacked onto developers. Insurance requirements further ratchet up the default capital outlays required to build. and so on. Many of these restrictions have 'good intentions,' but ensuring high quality housing means little when so many people are on the streets. Furthermore, there are significant ways in which non-corporate development is restricted as well. For example: we don't have proper slums. Instead, we actually have homeless people. part of this is because we destroy homeless shanty towns, even when they are advanced and well-coordinated, every chance we get. Such as homeless people living in caves along the Tuolumne River, even featuring their own chimneys. Progressives and other busybodies cite health and safety issues with such makeshift infrastructure. but they don't have a sociologically serious understanding of these things. It takes time and effort for low-quality efforts to crystallize into high-quality, robust institutions. If we didn't systematically stop non-corporate development from the ground up, exiting the formal housing market wouldn't entail homelessness. It would mean that you move to shanty towns and slums that are continuously developing their infrastructural capacity. The upshot of this is that housing is not nearly as inelastic as most people say: there *can* be competitive choice between the corporate housing market and a myriad of other housing alternatives. The binary choice between professional real state and homelessness is an artificial condition created by state micromanagement of the economy. In sum, the highly inelastic nature of housing is an artificial, state-backed condition. And there are a thousand invisible ways that construction costs are increased by state intervention. Which NIMBYs don't mention when pointing out that mainstream developers seek decent profit margins and claim they only have an incentive to build when rents sufficiently increase.
Your narrative regarding unions is a little limited, but I won't get into it. I will briefly say that labour laws and state-backed unions have acted as a managerial compromise with corporate interests. While illegalizing wildcat union tactics that could have sowed the mechanisms of industrial warfare and created far more extreme forms of collective bargaining. And notice, for example, that “union busters” are violating free market principles by imposing a hyper-specific organizational form on the economy through the power of the state. To call union busting a free market proposal is a hilarious joke.
This is just a microcosm of the systematic ways in which left-wing market anarchists and other free marketeers envision a laissez-faire order that defaces capital, rather than empowering it. Read Kevin Carson's “Organization Theory” for a historically, economically, and sociologically dense case for the metastatic ways in which the top-down designs of society and state-backed incentive structures are responsible for capitalist exploitation. (Not banal simplicities like “the profit motive” or “wanting to keep the costs of labour low.”) You would do well to familiarize yourself with what other people actually believe, rather than wallow in intellectual arrested development and latch onto the most generic centre-leftist narration of economic history imaginable. Your video presented itself as saving people from having to pay for a college education. That's true if it means: 'a centre-leftist smear on economics 101 and a simple awareness of 20th century history.' (Even the heavy restriction to the 20th century is a problem. Hence fantastical illusions like calling free trade a Milton Friedman era idea. It is, in fact, a successor to mercantilism. You are surely familiar with Ricardo's Law of Association and disputes over the Corn Laws and so forth? Free trade opposes artificial economic privilege and wealth disparity at its core.)
Ok. We get it. You’re right wing.
@@atheopagan tl;dr