Jack Rasmus

Interested in the real facts behind the actual US GDP, jobs numbers, wages? How Neoliberal economic policies are intensifying under Trump? And why the ‘organizational question’ today is paramount.

Watch my hour presentation to local bay are progressive group

GO TO: https://speakoutsocialists.org/us-economic-policy-whats-in-store-for-the-99-2/

“On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 Donald Trump delivered a State of the Union speech that revealed his election 2020 strategy, designed to roil and mobilize his political base, and to declare to the Democrats that his political war with them will now escalate further.

If anyone thinks the recent impeachment and Senate trial was the high point of the growing conflict between the two political parties, Republican (correct that: Trumpublicans now) and Democrat, they haven’t seen anything yet. The worse, much worse is yet to come in the months leading up to the November 2020 elections.

The visual personification of this intensifying conflict was evident during Trump’s speech: As he began speaking Trump turned to vice president Pence and House of Representatives leader, Pelosi, both sitting behind him on a dais. Trump handed them his written speech, as is the tradition. He then abruptly turned away from Pelosi refusing to shake her extended hand—as traditional decorum has always required. Pelosi, shocked by the snub, after Trump finished, in turn symbolically tore up the written speech. All this was caught on national TV. The event was symbolic of the fight will now escalate and get even more vicious in the run up to November.

If Trump’s speech summarized the conflict up to this point, the exchange between him and Pelosi reflected the ‘gloves off’ political conflict now about to begin. As the saying goes, “We ain’t seen nothing yet”!

It is not difficult to understand the true meaning of Trump’s SOTU. Above all, it represents a toss of ‘red meat’ to his radical political base. There was very little in it about what he proposes for the country in the future, as is normal for a SOTU speech. Instead, what we got was a speech designed to agitate and mobilize his political base based on themes of fear (of the immigrant) and hate (of Pelosi and the Democrats). The dish of fear/hate was sauteed with a large dose of lies and misrepresentations, and served up with a new recipe of racism designed to help Trump hold on to the swing states that delivered his electoral college majority in 2016. The speech marks what will be a significant escalation of extraordinary political attacks by Trump and his movement against his Democrat opponents in the election. And if past practice is any clue, the Democrat leadership is likely unprepared for what is to come.

The ‘Red Meat’ to the Base

The speech was replete with what Trump’s base wants to hear, with no punches pulled. Once again, as in 2016, the immigrant is the dangerous criminal and killer. The immigrant is of course anyone of color, but especially Latinos crossing the southern US border, and anyone sympathetic in any way to them or even those already legally here. Trump wants to protect us from the immigrant. And according to Trump’s appeal to this base: the Democrats want to embrace him, protect him with taxpayer money, and thereby identify themselves with the criminal-killer element among us.

In the same breath as he reiterated his politically successful anti-Latino racist appeal, Trump touted his “long, tall and very powerful” wall, claiming 100 miles have already been built and another 500 coming next year. More money for the wall will thus by inference be necessary. Or else we may all suffer the fate of the anecdotal killer-criminal-immigrant, who of course is Latino.
A variation on this illegal (read: Latino) ‘enemy within us’ theme is the Sanctuary Cities movement and, by association, the entire state of California which has declared itself a sanctuary state. Trump spent a good deal of time in his speech attacking sanctuary cities. In the past, his bete noir was a person (Hillary, Pelosi, etc.) Now it’s a geography, even a state. Watch out California. Trump is about to swing his ax, far and wide, and in your direction!

Like most demagogues, Trump likes to make his case with anecdotal, emotional appeals. Thus, with a fear-mongering, melodramatic anecdotal example early in his speech he cited a criminal illegal running amuck, shooting everyone in California. That cleared the way for his proposal for legislation to go after Sanctuary Cities, in particular in California. The legislation proposed was the ‘Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities’ Act that would allow individuals to sue Sanctuary Cities. It is clearly a move to open the door for radical elements of his base to protest and engage in even more militant, perhaps even violent, action—-not unlike how anti-abortion radicals were encouraged in the past to physically attack abortion clinics and threaten and assault doctors and nurses.

Like all extreme nationalist and proto-fascist movements, there must be an ‘enemy within’ that is identified as the source of the country’s problems—including those who might defend them.
Another ‘red meat’ toss to his base in his speech was his proposal for legislation to bar late term abortions. Still another dish offered up was allowing prayer in public schools, which he followed up with a pledge to increase federal funding to promote it.

Another fresh bone thrown to the base was Trump’s strong endorsement of 2nd amendment gun rights. In contrast, throughout the speech not a word was said about mass killings at US schools or the fact that studies show a shooting and killing goes on in schools in America at least once every day somewhere.

His base was no doubt pleased as well with his solution to the growing climate crisis: somehow business and the public will plant 1 trillion more trees, he proposed. That would presumably create enough oxygen to prevent the oceans from acidifying, glaciers from melting, and Australia and California from burning.

There was also an attack on public schools. Trump claimed they were failing everywhere and that every parent should have the choice of sending their kid to whatever school they wanted, and receive scholarship money paid by the taxpayer to send them to a private school of their choice. Trump touted the ‘Educational Freedom & Scholarship Act’. In one of at least a half dozen examples, best described as ‘gallery melodrama’, he turned to the gallery in the House chamber and introduced a young black girl and her mother, announcing on the spot he personally was giving her a scholarship under the Act.

One of the more disgusting examples of ‘gallery melodrama’, that has become ready fare apparently in these SOTU speeches in recent years, was Trump’s introduction of the right wing radical talk show pundit, Rush Limbaugh. Long an ideologue of the radical, extreme right who has dished up lies and misrepresentations on a daily basis, Limbaugh was introduced as having stage 4 lung cancer. That was to set up the sympathy appeal, of course. Trump then announced he was giving Rush the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Rush acted surprised. The person next to Rush then immediately pulled out the medal and draped it around Limbaugh’s neck. We’re supposed to believe it was all unrehearsed and spontaneous. Not a dry eye in the gallery. Trump’s message: all you liars and hate mongers on the right out there, you too can become a hero under Trump. Just keep up the good work in the coming election year!

The New Racism Card

Democrats should take note of Trump’s new racism strategy. He clearly is now appealing to the African-American voter—even as he writes off and declares the Latino as the illegal alien threat.
In at least six episodes of ‘gallery melodrama’, Trump’s subject was a black American. In addition to the young girl and her mother, noted above, Trump introduced a black former drug user who became a businessman, enabled by Trump’s ‘opportunity zone’ legislation—in fact a piece of legislation designed to give special tax cuts to businesses in certain cities. Then there was the black kid who wants to become an astronaut. He was introduced with his 100 year old grandfather, a former Air Force officer, Charles McGee, who served in Korea and Vietnam, next to him. Trump announced he just made McGee a brigadier general. That kills ‘three birds with one stone’, as they say: a kudo to senior citizens, to blacks, and to the military all in one melodrama bundle. Trump then proposed an increase in funding for black colleges.

In only one, and very brief, ‘gallery melodrama’ episode during the speech was a Latino introduced. Unlike all the black kids and moms, he was a Latino ICE officer. Not as much emotional sympathy appeal there.

See where this is going? Up with blacks; down with Latinos? Split the minority vote.

Why the strange pro-black strategy? A strategy launched, by the way, a few days earlier in his unprecedented election Ad in the super-bowl, where Trump took credit for the bipartisan criminal reform legislation just passed, by showing a middle aged black women crying in relief now that Trump had released her relative from prison. Trump now a defender of African-Americans? A reformed former racist? Trump the declarer that Africans lived in shithole countries?

It’s not that Trump has overnight given up his racist attitude against African Americans. What he’s doing is counting the electoral votes in the swing states. The new appeal to blacks is designed to provide him a margin of extra votes in those swing states, a safer margin in the red states, especially the south in places like Georgia, all to ensure he wins the electoral college votes in those states as he did in 2016. That black vote margin is needed to offset the possible loss of middle class white women in the swing states that are, according to polls, put off by Trump’s aggressive and off the cuff tweets and statements.

Manipulate blacks. Mobilize white nationalists by vilifying Latinos and other peoples of color. Split the minority vote, in other words.

Trump’s Lies by Commission

As heard so often from Trump, much of his SOTU speech was laden with outright lies. In the roughly one-third of it devoted to the economy, this was especially the case. (Another one third of the speech was devoted to domestic issues and another third to foreign policy).

First there was Trump’s claim that the under him the US economy is “the best it has ever been” in US history. But what are the facts? Not so in terms of US GDP. Trump’s roughly 2% growth rate today is not that much different from the average since 2000. Nevertheless he said “Families are flourishing”. Oh? What about the more than half of families today who have less than $400 to their name for emergencies? Or the more than half in each of the last two years who say, in polls, they received no wage increase at all in either year? Or what about the tens of millions of millennials and youth indentured with $1.6 trillion in student debt and can’t get homes or families even started?

In the speech, Trump claimed the unemployment rate was the lowest ever. But that’s the so-called U-3 rate which covers only full time workers, whose employment ranks by the way have been declining in absolute terms. It further excludes altogether the roughly 60 million US part time, gig and temp workers. If they were accurately estimated and included in unemployment figures, the true unemployment rate would be 8%-10%.

And what about wages? In the speech Trump repeated the oft-heard statistic that wages have been rising on his watch. But behind that figure lay several deeper facts: first, there’s the more than half of the labor force who acknowledge they received no wage increase at all last year or the year before. That suggests it is the top 10% of tech, professional, and other workers who are getting most of the wage gains. Moreover, the wage figures and gains noted by Trump are an average: if those at the top get more, those at the middle and below are getting less or even nothing. In addition, the numbers are for full time workers, leaving out the 60 million part time and temps. Finally, they’re wages not adjusted for inflation.

The real picture is that unemployment is much higher and wages are stagnating for the vast majority or worse. But this didn’t stop Trump in his SOTU speech from saying “companies are coming back to the US” and creating jobs. Or that this is a ‘blue collar boom’ with wages rising.

Trump also declared in his SOTU that he would protect social security and Medicare. But in his recent speech to the billionaire crowd in Davos, Switzerland he let it slip to the well-heeled in attendance he would be going after both once he won the election again. One wonders which audience he’s speaking the truth of his real intentions to.

In the SOTU he also gave support to infrastructure spending. But his prior proposals define ‘infrastructure investment’ as tax cuts for real estate developers.

He also declared in the SOTU speech that his recent proposals would lower prescription drug prices. But by this he really meant consumers being gouged by the Pharma companies would get to see how much the various drugs were being raised, in order to choose which one that would gouge them less. Market transparency does not mean lower drug prices. Big Pharma is not a competitive market where the consumer can choose among multiple offerings.

An even more outrageous, blatant lie was Trump’s declaration he was giving his “ironclad” guarantee that those with health related, pre-existing conditions would have access to health care–when in fact what he has proposed to date are various measures to roll back pre-existing conditions guarantees.

Trump’s most ridiculous lie was that Medicare was socialist. Here he was obviously attacking the growing support for a Medicare for All solution to the health crisis, increasingly supported both by the public and within the ranks of the Democrats. As he put it, 180 million Americans love their private health insurance. And he promised not to let the socialists take that away, even though it’s quite clear that 70% of the US population is now dissatisfied with private health insurance and want something better. And if Medicare is socialist, does that mean the 50 million seniors on Medicare and Social Security are socialists as well? Add the millennials and seniors, and America must have already gone socialist!

One of the more disgusting outright lying claims of Trump was his comment that, under his regime, 7 million on food stamps had left the program. But what he didn’t mention was he and the Republicans just declared 700,000 no longer eligible for food stamp support, including single moms with kids.

Trump’s SOTU: Lying by Omission

Lies may be committed by carefully not elaborating on topics. Here Trump excelled as well in his SOTU speech. For example, he boasted that the stock markets had risen in value by $12 trillion on his watch. But what he didn’t say is that more than $1 trillion every year has been passed on by corporations to investors and stock holders in the form of stock buybacks and dividend payouts. That’s what drove the $12 Trillion, making the 2% of the voters who own most of the stock richer than ever in history.

He then glossed over the recent signed China-US phase 1 trade deal as well as the NAFTA 2.0 USMCA trade deal. he said they were great achievements, but refused to indicate in what sense. In recent weeks he has declared China would buy $100 billion more in US goods this year as part of that deal. But the fact is China never agreed to that and most economists estimate it will be well less than $50B, and maybe not even that now that the coronavirus is undermining US-China trade.

And so far as the USMCA is concerned, Trump in the SOTU speech reported it will produce 100,000 new US jobs. But even a cursory reading of the terms of that deal show there are no measures designed to bring back jobs from Mexico to the US. In both the trade deals, there’s really ‘no there there’, as economists are now beginning to determine. Both the China and USMCA trade deals are just old wine in new bottles, as they say, corked up with a lot of bombast, hyperbole, and factual misrepresentation.

Missing totally from the SOTU speech was any reference how Trump’s multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for corporations and investors and war spending have driven the US budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion a year, with trillion dollar additional deficits for another decade! In short, unlike all Republican presidents before him, in his SOTU speech Trump said nothing about the accelerating deficit, and in turn the $23 trillion national debt, or how he proposed to address it in the coming year or beyond.

In yet another example of lying by omission, in the speech Trump claimed that low wage workers had experienced an increase of 16% in wages on his watch, but then didn’t bother to explain that most of that was due to the raising of minimum wages by governors and legislatures in the ‘blue’ Democratic states.

Lying by omission means taking credit for things you never did, or were done by others. That’s become a norm for Trump, and he kept up that practice throughout the SOTU speech.

Foreign Policy Fantasies

Trump has had no actual foreign policy accomplishment during his entire term in office. Nothing came of the North Korea deal. He was able to get only a few token European countries, like Greece, to increase their NATO spending a little, but not much. His attempted support for a coup in Venezuela collapsed. (That didn’t stop him by bringing to his speech the US selected puppet, Guido, and introducing him in the gallery). His trade deals produced very little in actual gains for the US ballooning trade deficit. He achieved nothing in Syria or Turkey except to allow Russia to increase its influence in both. And he failed to get Iran to the bargaining table to renegotiate the nuclear deal.

What he did declare in his SOTU speech as victories in foreign policy was his reversal of the Obama administration’s opening to Cuba. His recent launch a new Mideast Israel-Palestine initiative that was dead on arrival. The claim he destroyed ISIS, when in fact it was mostly the Iranians, Kurds, Russians, and Turks that did it. And his declaration that peace talks in Afghanistan to end that conflict were making “tremendous progress”, when in fact a deal isn’t even close. And, not least, his assassination of the Iranian general, Soleimani, that almost pushed both countries over the brink of war. Not much there in foreign policy either.

The SOTU Message: Domestic Political Warfare

Where Trump has succeeded is in his domestic political war with the Democrats. As he noted in the SOTU speech, he has approved 187 new Federal Court judges and two Supreme Court judges, giving him a clear majority in the Judiciary. The US Senate has become no less myopically committed to him than his political grassroots base and media machine. Senate leader, McConnell, has proven to be one of the most obsequious Senate leaders in history. With the Judiciary and one house of Congress firmly in his pocket now he has not been reluctant to break whatever rules and norms he deems necessary.

Having outmaneuvered the Democrats in the Mueller Report and Russia interference affair, and now as well in the impeachment attempt, Trump is now even more confident no doubt that he can run roughshod over Pelosi and the Democrats in this election year. And he will.

His SOTU speech was in effect a declaration of his intent to do so. And the confrontation at the end of the speech between himself and Pelosi—-Trump refusing to shake her extended hand and Pelosi then ripping up his speech—is symbolic of the political dogfight about to come. Throughout it all, Trump’s approval rating has survived in safe territory. His red state allies are intent on ensuring his electoral vote majority via both gerrymandering and voter roll suppression. His grass roots minions are itching to release more aggressive protests, demonstrations and action. His strategists are formulating a new racist appeal to split Democrats’ historical minority base of support.

Meanwhile, the Democrats themselves are sliding into their own internal conflict, with the corporate wing planning to scuttle Sanders by any means necessary and replace him with Bloomberg as their candidate at the convention.

In short, Trump’s SOTU speech was less about the state of the union and more about the state of Trump’s re-election and the Trump strategy to win a second term in November. And it appears he may succeed in domestic politics, while having clearly failed in economics and foreign policy.”

Jack Rasmus
February 4, 2020
copyright 2020

Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020. His website is: kyklosproductions.com, his blog: jackrasmus.com. And his twitter handle @drjackrasmus.

Guns & Butter radio host, Bonnie Faulkner, continues the interview Dr. Rasmus on the major themes and analyses of his just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump‘, Clarity Press, January 2020.

In Part 1

the first interview (see posted below this blog), Bonnie and Dr. Rasmus discuss the material origins of Neoliberalism, its evolution from the late 1970s to its crisis in 2008-09, the failure of Obama to restore its full momentum, and Trump’s current effort to do so–which has been only partially successful.

In this Part 2

of the interview, Rasmus explains why Trump’s restoration of a new virulent form of Neoliberalism is failing, and why it will continue, due to new emergent technological and other material forces in the 21st century US and global economy. Rasmus discusses these technological-material forces, which constitute the ‘natural’ restructuring of the capitalist system, and why such forces are coming increasingly into contradiction with the ‘induced’ restructuring represented by Neoliberal policies. Rasmus explains this increasingly unstable relationship will of necessity lead to the deeper crisis of Neoliberalism (compared to 2008-09 that was partially overcome) in the 2020s decade ahead.

A new policy mix and regime will have to emerge. The structure of that regime won’t be Neoliberal as we know it, but something else–i.e. either more proto-fascist (corporate-state integration) or something more progressive. The outcome will be decided by political conflict. In the process the US political system will continue to change, as it has the last three decades, but now more rapidly as political sources defending Neoliberalism chip away at democratic rights at home (USA) and former alliances abroad. The collapse of Neoliberalism is accompanied by a structuring of the US political system itself, especially a further restriction on democratic and civil rights and liberties.

Listen to the Part 2 Interview, “After Trump, What’s Next?”, GO TO

http://gunsandbutter.org/blog/2020/02/02/after-trump-and-neoliberalism-whats-next

(For those interested in the Part 1 Interview, “Neoliberalism from Expansion to Stagnation”, GO TO)

http://gunsandbutter.snappages.com/blog/2020/01/23/neoliberalism-from-expansion-to-stagnation

My initial reply to the ‘Open Letter’ in Znet blog by Chomsky and Others–which argued the Green party candidates should not run in ‘contested states’ less they ensure the re-election of Trump in November–has prompted a debate between myself and Znet editor, Michael Albert. Michael has generously posted my reply to him and his criticisms of my initial ‘reply’ to the Open Letter, and followed with further comments of his own (see Znet). I’m sharing here with readers my second reply to Albert’s first response to my first reply to the Open Letter.

The election of November 2020 is not the endgame. Win or Lose, Trump and his radical right nationalist, and racist, movement will not be defeated in November. The fight will have only begun, and at a more intense level in 2021. Discouraging those movements, youth, and workers who don’t want either Trump or a Democrat corporate Clinton-Obama clone from organizing in this election year is an unprincipled position, I argue. Here’s my second reply:

Reply to Albert’s Reponse to My 1st Critique of the Open Letter

“In his reply to my challenge to the Open Letter to the Green Party to get out of elections in the contested states in the 2020 election, Michael engaged in quote by quote commentary. I’m not going to bother readers with a detailed ‘he said she said’ response.

But what bothered me most about the Open Letter is that, despite all its clever intellectual nuancing, the Letter said it’s ok to vote for Biden and the corporate Democrat alternative in order to defeat Trump. Even when a vote for Biden will be a vote to elect Trump.

I will quote the Letter just one time on this point. It said: “real solutions require Trump out of office…Real solutions will be somewhat more probable even with the likes of Biden in office”.

Presumably that means per the Letter only in the ‘contested states’. But how can the signers of the Letter know a priori which states are going to be ‘contested’. Do you think this election is going to be simply a repeat of 2016? Do you have a political crystal ball? I don’t care what polls you refer to in support of this. The polls often mean little, and are more than not candidate marketing tools. You can’t know beforehand what states for independent third parties to run in, so you can’t demand they don’t run in any. To do so is to reject the progressive principle of independent political action.

The whole thrust of the Letter is that Greens should defer to the Democrats no matter who they run, including Biden! Sorry, that’s my reading of it despite all the nuancing about contested states, etc.

Would the authors of the Letter demand that as well, not just of the Greens, but of the ‘Our Revolution’ crowd. What if the OR group decides to run Sanders (or someone else) as an independent should the Democrats deny Sanders their nomination (again) when they manipulate their super delegates at their nominating convention this summer? And they will. Their strategy is transparent: split the primary votes and deny Sanders a nomination on the first ballot. Then release the political ‘Kraken’ of the Democrats’ hundreds of special delegates, mostly party hacks, to vote on the second ballot. That’s where Michael Bloomberg comes in. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and even Warren will be kept in the race by corporate money to ensure Sanders doesn’t win on the first ballot. Most likely Bloomberg then gets the nomination, and we all get to vote on which billionaire will be president for another four years!

And what if Sanders himself runs as an independent after being denied the nomination? (Very highly unlikely I admit). Should we still support Biden then, just to stop Trump? Should we tell Bernie don’t run in the ‘contested states’? Or tell disaffected youth and workers don’t write in his name? Or don’t vote for Greens or anyone else? Do the authors of the Open Letter see where this leads?

Trump has you guys all panicking. Willing to abandon important principles. Declaring that independents should not run ‘here or there’, a priori decided by some intellectuals.

Sorry that’s a Left Liberal position and formulation. It undermine the principle of supporting independent political action on the Left and among progressives everywhere. And it’s only independent political action that can get us out of this 40 year mess or economic stagnation and decline, the collapsing social structure, and the incremental (now accelerating) decline of even the limited democratic rights that still exist.

So, in short, I was shocked to read long time Z writers would stoop to support Biden and corporate Democrats if it came down to that. That’s what I expect to read from The Nation magazine, the Democrat party and corporate funded rag. Not from those who write for Z.

If the Democrats lose in November it will be because the corporate moneybag wing of the Corporate Party of America—aka Democrats—refuse to let go of the strategy they adopted back in 1992 when they put their boy, Bill Clinton, up as their candidate; and when the DLC faction took over that party, holding on to it to the very present. The Democrats are bankrupt. Look what Obama did for eight years, which created the groundwork for Trump. Look what Hillary didn’t do in 2016, giving Trump the presidency. Look how the Pelosi-Shumer regime has botched first the Mueller investigation and now the Impeachment. Do you think they, and Biden, will change anything? But the authors of the Letter say nonetheless we should vote for Biden (yes, you do say that, notwithstanding carefully nuanced).

Stop letting this guy Trump terrify you. After all, he is creating the next generation of socialists among millennials and GenZers.

As for Michael Albert’s comment, would I vote for Sanders. Yes, probably. But I’d vote for his program, not for him personally. And I am watching closely to see if he is really ‘for real’ and principled about his program or not. Or whether he’ll pull an ‘Obama’—i.e. talk the talk and then abandon the walk once nominated. Or, when shit on again by the Democrats at the convention, turn once more and urge a vote for them again—which will be Biden or Bloomberg.

It’s for that latter reason of mistrust as well that I won’t vote for Warren. She’ll bend to corporate party pressure if nominated. She’s already offered them to do so. She’d be a repeat Obama.

And the others: Buttigieg (now getting big money from shadow bankers, hedge funds, private equity) and Klobuchar—they’re there to split the Sanders vote in the primaries. And Bloomberg? The billionaire ex-Republican spending on ads trying to appear like a flaming progressive? He’s the party’s back up candidate and political safety valve.

The only real candidate is Sanders. But he’ll never get the nomination, and he will fall in line even after being deprived of it a second time, and say vote for Biden, like you guys of the Open Letter. The real candidate of the Democrat wing of the Corporate party of America is Mike Bloomberg, just offstage, waiting to be called in to save us all—like Bill, like Barack, like Hillary.

Anything to stop Trump. That’s the 40 year shell game. And I was greatly disappointed to read that the authors of the Open Letter have fallen for it again. All the rest of ‘he said, she said’ in Michael’s rebuttal to my initial post are irrelevant. It’s all about defeat Trump at any cost. The authors of the Open Letter support that. I don’t. Not 40 more years of a Biden or Bloomberg or any other corporate candidate.

In summary, I’m not for telling any independent party to stand down in any state, contested or not. That’s a matter of principle with me, I guess, which the authors of the Letter clearly don’t share.”

A recent reader of my book, “The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump”, Clarity Press, January 2020, recently asked why I argued in the book–i.e. on the topic of the contradictions and crisis of Neoliberal policy–that even a future fiscal stimulus may not prove sufficient to generate recovery from the next recession around the corner. A theme in the book is that Neoliberal policies are facing greater contradictions, Trump is failing to restore the momentum of Neoliberalism that was in effect from 1978 to 2008-09. Thus something different, a new policy mix and regime that is not Neoliberal will likely follow in the 2020s. One possible form could be a US specific version of fascist economic policies. The second question asked me is what might that look like?

The following is my reply, shared here with readers, as to why traditional fiscal policies likely won’t prove sufficient to generate recovery from the next recession, even if not Neoliberal; and my preliminary comments on what US-specific fascist economic programs might look like.

1. Why fiscal policies won’t have much stimulus effect in a 2020s Post-Crisis Recovery

The multiplier effect for tax cuts is always less than for direct government spending. Even more so for business-investor tax cuts. For 20 yrs now the main stimulus approach for fiscal policy has been business-investor tax cuts. They’ll likely do that again, whoever wins the election and faces the recession in 2021. But there are even further depressing effects of such tax cut stimulus occurring now. One is globalization. Much of the result of the tax cuts for business is redirected overseas to emerging markets. So it has little effect on the US economy. Even more so is the other diversion: into financial markets. (Global stock market values surged from $35T to $85T from 2010-18, a 200% increase). Non-stock financial markets (called capital markets) surged by 600% as well. So financialization is negating the multiplier effect of tax policy. What about cuts to household consumer taxes? Here the problem for the multiplier is that the tax cuts get diverted in part to pay for the principal and interest on the massive $15Tin US household debt. It doesn’t get spent on new consumption.

What about government spending programs as fiscal stimulus? Multipliers are usually higher. But government spending on infrastructure, for example, is longer term. It’s initial impact in a recession is weak and delayed. Besides, the neoliberal corporate parties (both wings of the corporate party of America) are resistant to spending on infrastructure and have shown they are both willing to reduce social program spending. What about other non-infrastructure government spending? It could have a stimulus effect, but it is viewed as the way to reduce the US deficit (created by tax cuts and war spending hikes). So what about war spending by government? Is that stimulating growth? Not so much any more. War goods production is not labor intensive as it used to be. Costs of aircraft, missiles, etc. are very high per item. Production processes don’t require as much labor any more. And much of the production is offshored to US allies (reducing labor content and thus wages and thus the multiplier effect even further). So in toto, multipliers are weaker today even for war spending.

2. What might US-specific fascist economic policies Look Like

Fascist economics is closely associated with what’s called ‘corporatism’. It is a very close alliance between capitalists and the state. The two meld even more than under ‘normal’ capitalism. The State plays a greater, more aggressive managerial role in determining what’s produced and by which companies, distribution, and in general guarantees the profits of business by various means. When the state wants to expand geographically (as did Germany and Italy for example), the state directed production takes on a military character. I don’t think US corporatism will assume that character. It is already, pre-fascist, highly developed in that military economic sense. The future US fascist state will find new ways to subsidize US capital. It will play a bigger role in financing technology development, controlling labor markets and thus unions and wages, and defending the US global economic empire by asymmetrical military spending and space form spending (to check Russia and China). It’s hard to see how US corporatism and fascism will assume form. It will become clearer once the next crisis erupts and the State has to bail out the capitalists again. But we’ll see its early outlines in 2-3 years I believe. Fascism is bigger than just the experience of Germany-Italy-Iberia last century. The US form will be different. But no less fascist in the broader sense of State-Corporate integration.

Dr. Jack Rasmus
copyright 2020

Listen to my Alternative Visions radio show of January 31, 2020 for my preliminary analysis of the (T)rump impeachment trial and the major economic event of the week–the rapid spread of the Coronavirus and the channels of economic contagion it is beginning to create.

TO Listen GO TO:

http://alternativevisions.podbean.com

SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT

Dr. Rasmus provides his reflections on the Senate trial of Trump and the further crisis and decline of Democracy in America that it represents. How James Madison’s worst fears and warnings are being played out before our eyes historically in the (T)rump trial underway. How the outcome now will embolden Trump to engage in similar behavior and move further to ‘govern’ by bypassing Congress. The trial as the expansion of the Imperial presidency in domestic as well as foreign policy. How current events are very much like 1856 America. The potential impacts of the Coronavirus on the China, Asia and global economies are reviewed. The imminent big impact on stock and other financial markets. How consumer spending in the US has begun to slow appreciably since November already, and business investment and manufacturing continues to contract. The virus may be the factor yet to push the US economy into recession. Rasmus discusses the weaknesses of Trump’s China trade deal and the just signed NAFTA 2.0. Why Brexit plus virus now entering Europe will mean a ‘double’ hit to the Europe economy on both sides of the channel.

Read my quick takes and analyses from my January tweets on some of the key economic and political events of this past month.

#China

Virus spreading fast: watch India contagion especially. China mkts re-open today. Watch big stock contraction there, followed by accelerating world contagion: stocks, oil, commodities, EME currencies fall; $, bonds, gold rise. Brexit=EU/UK double hit.

#impeachment

4th swing vote Senator, Alexander, voting no to allow witnesses & evidence. Says Trump did it, was inappropriate, but not convictable. What’s to stop Trump now in rest of election year again soliciting (via buddy Guliani) foreign assistance in his election? Nothing.

#impeachment

If acquitted, will Trump govern bypassing Congress? With impeachment blocked, he can now divert funds as he pleases, spend on what he wants, govern by executive order. 2020=the dawn of the Imperial presidency in domestic affairs. Party loyalty trumps the Constitution

#impeachment

the fear of founders of US Constitution is now being played out: i.e. that party factions would undermine the Constitution. Trump acquittal will mean impeachment will only occur in rare cases, where one party controls both House & Senate and other party the executive

#USChinatradedeal

China cutting back on global oil/commodity imports due to expected impact of virus on economy. China’s Phase 1 trade deal with US has clause “except when mkt. conditions & demand” permit. China now won’t buy est. $76B US goods, esp. gas/oil in 2020 Predict $50b

#Coronavirus

Why are US returnees from China kept from departing US airports for only 72 hrs, when the virus gestation period is 2 weeks? Compare to Australia quarantine of returnees on remote Christmas Island for weeks. 8000 cases now in China. Forecasts to 190,000 in 2 weeks.

#impeachment

Just released Fox News poll show all voters favor Trump conviction & removal by 50%-44%. Some Republican Senators furious Trump-McConnell has put them in a box in election year. Meanwhile, Justice Dept. taking action to prevent Bolton book’s publication.

#impeachment

At start of trial Trump lawyers said US House should have gone to court to resolve Trump refusal to allow witnesses & docs. Same lawyers now say judiciary has no authority to settle impeachment disputes between Congress-President. (How much are they getting paid??)

#USstocks

Addendum to prior post: new int’l financial structure facilitating the excess demand for fin. assets: shadow banks; nonfin corps portfolio investing: comm. banks feeding shadow banks; dark pools; passive index funds; equity ETFs; fintech; AI enabled arbitraged trading

#BigPharma

Drug companies answer to runaway drug prices: pay by installment over 5 or 10 yrs for drugs like your car + ‘value-based contracts’: If drug doesn’t work, Pharma rebates part of cost…but to your employer not you. (Will Crispr gene tech end Pharma’s pill monopoly?)

#BigPharma

US consumers spend $1 trillion on hospital services & $335 billion on prescription drugs. But consumers pay out of pocket more than $12 billion more on drugs than on hospital services out of pocket. (Sources: Centers for Medicare-Medicaid Services, Drug Channels Inst.

#BigPharma

says it’s raising prices only 5.8%. How they do it: Keep thousands of drugs on their books marginally profitable & raise their prices $1T annual deficits for 2020s decade? While in the lair of billionaires, at Davos, Trump let’s it slip: cuts to social security & medicare that he says he’ll consider right after 2020 election. Then he immediately ‘walks it back’ next day. Too late

#Techtrends

Why US-China tech war over 5G? (now decoupled from US-China tariff war): Military dominance of 2020s. Military 5G=hypersonic missile guidance & detection avoidance; drone instant remote targeting; human-machine battlefield coordination. Goes with US space force plan

#Techtrends

What’s AI? Massive computing power+massive database instant processing+generative-adversarial neural nets teaching each other (deep machine learning), glued together by advanced stats + programming via python, R, or other=disaster of loss of millions low decision jobs

#Techtrends

Addendum to last post: What about projected destruction of 30% occupations (fewer jobs;fewer hrs work) by 2025 from AI, etc., per McKinsey Report? What will such massive loss of jobs & income mean for consumption & GDP? Watch for big social backlash to tech by 2025.

#TechTrends

Microsoft CEO Nadella says 42b connected devices+cloud+machine learning will mean big rise in productivity & economy 2020s. Myopic econ view. Massive corp. debt today + debt defaults, bankruptcies & no credit = little invest in nextgen tech by most Businesses in 2020s

#impeachment

Despite Sup. Ct. Justice, Roberts reading rules day #1 that all Senators must remain in chamber at all times (with no phones), today 19 Republican Senators have left the chamber on day #1 trial. But you can’t see that; McConnell rules now prevent TV view of chamber

#impeachment

McConnell’s announces rule: witnesses must be deposed first in secret. Then based on what they say, it will take 51 senators to allow witnesses in trial. That way McConnell screens beforehand what witness testimony is allowed–his fallback if he loses witnesses fight

#impeachment

US Constitutional convention of 1787 debates made it clear: executive privilege is not absolute. Need of evidence takes precedence over executive privilege. Founders then left out of actual Constitution all reference to executive privilege

#impeachment

Republicans’ main argument: House should not ask Senate to conduct trial with insufficient evidence House itself didn’t gather. But insufficient evidence due to Trump refusing to allow witnesses & docs to appear in House hearings. Transparent rhetoric. Circular logic

#Fed

announces will issue new 20 yr. T-bonds. Why? 3 reasons: 1)raise funds to cover>$1 trillion annual US budget deficits in 2020; 2)need for more liquidity for Repo mkt injections; 3)Fed can’t raise rates due to Trump threats. Thus 20yr T bonds alternative. Fed policy a mess

#Chinatradedeal

Trump says China has agreed to buy $40b farm goods in 2020. Fact: China’s Liu He says will buy “as consumer needs and market conditions determine” (read: as Trump reduces tariffs).

#Yuan

Trump declares China no longer a currency manipulator. A phony claim from the start. China has intervened in mkts to keep Yuan in stable range for years. Rising US $ has stoked global currency devaluations, not Yuan. But Trump claims trade deal cause of stable Yuan

#budgetdeficit

It’s official: US deficit 2019 at $1.02 trillion. (Add another $80-$100B if counting military ‘black budget’ on new weapons that doesn’t show up in print anywhere). Trump’s 2 yrs budget increases>20%/yr on ave. each yr. Causes? tax cuts (60%)+military-social prgms

#tradewar

Council on Foreign Relations on Trump’s China trade deal: “China is set to do little more than restore agric. purchases and offer some nice words on financial services and intellectual property…Trump could have had that two years ago” Wall St. Journal 1-13-20, page 1

#Tradewar

Trump says China will buy $50b in US agric. in each of next two years + another $50b/y in non-ag goods. And US will keep $370b in tariffs on China imports. China refuses to confirm. $200b will never happen if $370b tariffs remain. 1-15 trade deal signing will come & go

#jobsreport

Friday’s Dec. US jobs report showed 145,000 net new jobs created. But that should be reduced by thousands as 45,000 GM strikers still returning to work & thousands of US 2020 census workers (500,000 total) still being hired. Real Dec. jobs number closer to 100,000

#USstocks

Wonder why US equity mkts just keep powering ahead? Fed keeps flooding mkts with liquidity: $83B in repos 1-9-20 + $46b on 1-8-20. Add wall of money offshore coming to US+record profits+corp. bond finance+ institutional structure & indexing/ETFs=record demand for stocks

#repomarket

Fed injects another $77b into repo market in just its first week of January 2020. Who now believes the fiction any longer that the Fed only targets real GDP, 2% goods inflation (PCE), or employment? Since December 2018 Fed rates clearly targeting financial asset mkts

#repomarket

fter providing $255B to repos in 2019, Fed to continue same vol. thru Jan. & more at least thru April. Dealers now borrowing via Repo Mkt cheaper than from private mkt before Sept. TD Securities: “The repo operations are a band-aid, but the wound isnt’ fully healed”

#Neoliberalism

Read David Baker’s review of my just released book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Jan. 2020 at https://jackrasmus.com/2020/01/01/book-review-1-the-scourge-of-neoliberalism-us-economic-policy-from-reagan-to-trump-by-dr-jack-rasmus-reviewed-by-david-baker/Now available at 20% discount from my blog and on Amazon and elsewhere Jan. 15.

#USeconomy

US manufacturing index (PMI) contracts for 5th month in December, from 48.1 to 47.2. Worst since June 2009. Watch US real investment continue to fall 4Q19 as well, extending decline to 9 mos. US CEOs #1 fear: recession 2020, up from #3 last yr. Now same as world CEOs

#Repomarket

Fed reports it provided net $255 billion in Repos since Sept. That’s ‘net’. Many more billions rolled over. But no year end crisis emerged. What’s next? Permanent Fed Repo (& reverse Repo) facility, a 2nd channel & the sleuth NEW QE. Fed balance sheet now $4.17T again

#Trump

For my analysis of Trump’s economic policies, their deep historical origins since 1978, successes & failures to date, and future prospects, read my just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Policy from Reagan to Trump’, now at my blog,

This past weekend a group best identified as ‘left liberal’ intellectuals posted an Open Letter’ to the Green Party charging that party with being responsible for Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016. They then declared that the Green Party’s 2020 presidential candidate, Howie Hawkins, should not run in 2020, lest the Greens become responsible for getting Trump re-elected again. Everything should be done to ensure that a Democrat Party candidate, whomever that might be, should win in 2020. That includes even Joe Biden, they say. Left liberals like themselves should simply ‘hold their noses’ and vote for Biden, if necessary, if he gets the nomination.

For someone like yours truly who has been around and seen the same strategy of ‘lesser evilism’ repeated for a half century now–with devastating consequences even when the lesser evil (aka Democrats) won the presidency–it is not surprising to read and hear the ‘left liberals’ lament once again!

The coterie signatories of the ‘open letter’ include: Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, Leslie Cagan, Ron Daniels, Kathy Kelly, Norman Solomon, Cynthia Peters and Michael Albert.

Their main argument, calling for Hawkins and the Greens to retreat from the 2020 electoral field (and for the record I am not a Green party member or a member of any other party), is that Hillary lost the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. to Trump in 2016 but would have won them–and thus the electoral college vote–if only those who voted for the Greens presidential candidate, Jill Stein, in the swing states had not done so but voted instead for Hillary.

It’s really a logically weak argument that one would think such ‘power intellectuals on the left’ would be hesitant to pen their name to it out of concern they would have insulted themselves to their audience. But they have.

The argument fails not only on the facts but on the amateur assumptions on which it also rests.

First, logically it is juvenile in that it assumes that those who voted for the Greens in 2016 in these swing states would have voted for Hillary, had there not been a Green candidate on the ballot. Its hidden assumption is that all of those Green votes would have voted Hillary had Jill Stein not run. That these assumptions are nonsense is self evident.

Clearly those who voted Green did so because they couldn’t stand Hillary, or knew of her record, or understood that a vote for Hillary would have meant a vote for war as well as more of the same failed economic policies of the Bill Clinton-Obama era that created the real conditions that gave rise to Trump.

The Green vote in the swing states would not have gone to Hillary. Those who voted Green would have instead stayed home and not voted or would have written in some other candidate. Most Greens are Green because they’ve come to understand what the Democrats in the era of Neoliberalism really stand for, both in domestic and foreign policy: escalating income inequality, precarious jobs, stagnant wages, unaffordable healthcare, poverty in retirement, rising rents, continuous wars, incessant tax cuts for the rich and their corporations, indenture to student debt, etc. That’s the legacy of both Republican and Democrat regimes since the 1970s–i.e. the past 50 years now.

Apart from weak logic and absurd (not so hidden) assumptions of the Open Letter, there’s the voting evidence as well as Hillary’s own self-destructive arrogance that explain the Democrats loss of the swing states in 2016 and thus the rise of Trump.

First, the Left Liberal authors of the Open Letter in question fail to explain that in the swing states Libertarian and other independent voters cast three and four times the votes for Trump than the Green party cast for its candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, in 2016. SO was it the Greens’ fault? The Libertarians? Other third parties?

No, none of the above. Hillary herself lost the swing states and handed Trump the presidency when she refused to even bother to campaign in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and barely showed up until the very end when it was already too late. Hillary thought she had the ‘blue collar’ vote in those states wrapped up and arrogantly ignored campaigning there. She ignored them. Took them for granted. And no one votes for someone who arrogantly ignores them and takes them for granted. Even if no Greens voted at all, Hillary would have lost the swing states. But the Open Letter would have us believe it was someone else’s fault, not Hillary’s.

If the Democrat leadership wants to win back swing state votes, it needs someone ‘not Hillary’. But Joe Biden is just another corporate moneybag wing Hillary clone. Not for nothing is he known as ‘bankers friend Joe’ from Delaware (where many big banks have their headquarters and politically own the state). Ditto for the corporate Dems backup candidate, Mike Bloomberg, a lifelong Republican billionaire only recently joined the corporate wing of the Dems.

The fundamental argument of the Left Liberals’ in their Open Letter is not just stop Trump by any means but, their argument behind the argument that there’s a fundamental difference in voting for a Democrat. (Or at least the corollary argument that the Democrat won’t screw us as badly as will the Republican).

But what does the historical evidence show? Have the Corporate Democrats been really any better over the past half century?

American voters, especially today’s Millenials, and now the GenZers, in polls are saying ‘a plague on both houses’ of Democrats and Republicans. They have lost hope of either party making a difference in their lives. They see both as contributing to their deteriorating conditions and near hopeless future, consisting of a lifetime of precarious, part time/temp jobs, with no benefits, working two and sometimes even three jobs to make ends meet, without affordable rents, and no chance of owning a home, living a life of indentured labor paying $1.6 trillion in student loans to the US government (at 6.8% interest, by the way, while bankers pay 1.6%), without affordable health insurance (including the soaring deductibles under Obamacare), unable to afford to even start a family. It’s a bleak prospect, created by both parties over recent decades.

It’s not coincidental that polls show, by well more than 50%, even as high as 70%, that the more than 50 million Millenials and GenZers prefer something called ‘socialism’ (although they’re probably not sure what that means except ‘none of the present’).

If the DLC-Corporate-moneybag wing of the Democrat leadership puts up a Biden or a Bloomberg–(i.e. latter their fallback at the Democrat party convention after no one gets the nomination on the first vote)–even more youth will not vote Democrat. And not just in the swing states. And if the Democrat leaders continue to scuttle the Sanders nomination–which they did in 2016 and show signs now of doing again in 2020–the Dems themselves, not a Green party candidacy, will once again have put Trump in office. It won’t be the Greens.

Of course Republican ‘red state’ control of electoral college votes is being ensured by voter suppression and gerrymandering. That will play a role as well. But here the Democrats’ loss of state legislatures and governorships under Obama, due to his ineffective economic policies in 2010 and after, have enabled that suppression and gerrymandering largely to happen as well. It made possible the Republican capture of two thirds of state legislatures, many of which have been pushing the voter suppression and gerrymandering.

It’s not for nothing that Obama is sometimes referred to by youth as ‘president Jello’–meaning he appears to move left and right but really is stuck in one place.

The Left Liberals’ Open Letter buys the Democrat moneybag wing’s argument that a Joe Biden (or Mike Bloomberg) argument that Corporate Democrat programs and policies are fundamentally better for average voters than would be Trump’s.

They think that the typical working class voter in the swing states, that abandoned Hillary in 2016 (or actually vice-versa), can’t figure out the game. Or that youth voters today can’t either. But they’re wrong.

Voters remember it was Bill Clinton had enabled NAFTA and sent millions of heartland American jobs offshore. It was Clinton that allowed hundreds of thousands of skilled tech workers into the US every year under H1-B/L-1 visas. It was Clinton that gave China preferred trading rights and allowed the shift of US manufacturing supply chains (and millions more good paying jobs) to China. It was Clinton that allowed corporations to ‘check the box’ on their tax forms and thereby not pay taxes on foreign profits. It was Clinton that permitted companies to divert funds from pension plans to pay for their corporations’ share of escalating health care costs. It was Clinton that allowed the deregulation of financial institutions that paved the way for subprime mortgages and the crash of 2008-09. The list is longer still.

And what about the corporate Democrats’ last minute hand picked candidate in 2008, Barack Obama? It was Obama that gave corporations $6 trillion in tax cuts from 2009-16, almost twice that even George W. Bush gave them. It was Obama who agreed to $1.5 trillion in social program spending cuts in 2011-13, thus taking back more than twice his 2009 recovery package of $878 billion. It was Obama who extended Bush’s tax cuts two years, 2010-12, and then made them permanent after 2013, amounting to another $5 trillion tax cuts for business and investors. It was Obama who continued Free Trade deals despite their obvious effects on jobs and wages, and then tried to push through the TPP trade deal. It was Obama who had the Federal Reserve bail out the banks and investors with the tune of at least $4.5 trillion, while he gave a mere $25 billion to bail out just a few of the 14 million who lost their homes. It was Obama who let Hillary start wars in Honduras to save the big landowners there, and then gave Hillary the green light in Libya to start another, creating that failed state there (as her hubby Bill did in Somalia). It was Obama that authorized and set the precedent for assassinations by drones (over 500 times on his watch). It was Obama who supported the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, to continue loaning banks free money, at an interest rate of 0.15% for seven years, long after the banks were bailed out, while charging millions of US students interest of 6.8% on their student loans to the government.

This is the decades long record that the Left Liberals want the US working class, students, and others to vote for again. Their argument is ‘anything but Trump’ will be better. But was it? Will it? Trump might give us war with Iran. But Democrats might with Russia. Both would give us invading Venezuela and continuing to rape South America.

I’m not talking here about Sanders, who the corporate wing will never allow as the Democrat party candidate in 2020. In fact, now that Sanders is rising in the polls and primaries, the corporate wing of the Democrats attack on him has intensified. Not just from Hillary, but from Warren, from the New York Times, and, as we’ll soon see, from all quarters of the Liberal Elite and their media and their grass roots operatives. Observing how Trump captured the Republican party, two years ago the Democrats’ leaders changed the rules of the game on how the party will run its convention this summer. They are prepared to scuttle Sanders by any means necessary.

But our Left Liberal intellectuals say we should vote for their candidate, Joe, if it comes down to that, just to beat Trump. But Trump will eat ‘ole Joe’ alive in a one on one competition, sad to say. They keep saying they want a candidate that can beat Trump. Then push one who cannot. And the Left Liberals want us to vote for Joe and not for a Green or anyone else. That’s the only way to win! It may be the sure way to lose!

Vote for Joe and hold your nose, they say. The Left Liberal intellectuals, who are mostly well ensconced in secure and decent paying academic jobs, won’t be impacted much by Joe’s or Mike’s or Pelosi’s or Shumer’s policies. But the rest who need a change will be.

The Open Letter represents just another form of ‘Liberal’ telling us to vote for another Liberal. Where has that gotten us?

It’s the old ‘shell game’: Republicans make their capitalists filthy rich and ruin the economy in the process. Corporate Democrats come in and make the same even richer while failing to solve the crisis. Their failure allows the Republicans to point to their failed recovery, again to lie to us, and get back in. The process starts all over. It’s been that way for at least 50 years.

And the Left Liberal intellectuals want us to buy into it for another 50?

I’d support Sanders, but he’ll never get the Democrat nomination. Even if he wins the primaries. For this isn’t the Democrat party of FDR any more, as much as Bernie would like it to be. It’s a corporate wing run party since Bill Clinton. And the Left Liberal intellectuals have bought into the corporate wing’s lie yet again, as they always have in a crisis.

One wonders if they’ll vote for Sanders, should he run as an independent after the Democrat leadership denies him the nomination at their convention this summer. But I bet they’d still vote for Joe. (Correct that: Mike).

Jack Rasmus
January 28, 2020

Listen to my two recent Alternative Visions radio shows where I sum up the 10 most important US and global economic events of last year, 2019 in the first post; and in the second the 10 most important US economic and political events for the last decade, 2010-19. Understanding the past helps understand the current juncture, 2020, as well as identifies possibilities for future decade, 2020-29, to come.

For 2019 SHOW GO TO:

https://www.podbean.com/site/EpisodeDownload/PBCDB794684W6

For 2010-2019 SHOW GO TO:

https://www.podbean.com/site/EpisodeDownload/PBD0EDD7K4WUG

SHOW CONTENT ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR BOTH

2019 Alternative Visions Show:

Dr. Rasmus reviews the 10 most important US and global economic events of 2019. Topics include the Fed’s 2016-18 interest rate hike policy reversal and 2019 interest rate cuts; the 2019 Repo market crisis; Trump’s trade wars ( USMCA and China deals); the US 5 mo. manufacturing recession now worsening; the 9 mo. long 2019 contraction in US real investment; the stock market and bond boom of 2019 (and what’s driving it); Trump’s official budget deficit now >$1 trillion & continued tax cutting; and US debt—public and private—surpassing $60 trillion. Globally, the top 10 events include: global trade stagnation, global manufacturing recession, central banks’ shift again to QE, global stock market boom, $15 trillion in negative interest rates, >$10 trillion in global non-performing bank loans, emergence of initial alternatives to the US dominated SWIFT international payments system, Latin American economies’ currency crises, growing financial instability in India, and China’s economy slowing GDP and rising debt and emerging defaults.

2010-2019 Alternative Visions Show

Today’s show delves deeper and looks at the 10 most important US economic and political events of the past decade, since the great recession and financial crash of 2007-09. Topics covered include: Obama’s failed economic recovery program of 2009, Obama’s $6 trillion in extended Bush tax cuts for the rich and business, the $1T austerity program of 2011 cutting social programs, the Federal Reserve Bank’s $5T bailout of the banks and investors via QE and zero interest rates for banks for 7 years, the US debt acceleration for government, households and business, the financial asset market boom and bubbles (stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc.) still underway, $10 trillion in corporate stock buybacks and dividend payouts, the deregulation of the ACA and Dodd-Frank healthcare and bank Acts of 2010, and the rise of digital currencies like Bitcoin, Libra (proposed), and others. On the political side of the past decade, most important events include the Supreme Court passage of Citizens United, Obama’s failure to bail out Main St. in 2010 and Democrat party debacle in the 2010 midterm elections, the shift in the ‘Red’ states and consequent spread of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and red state dominance of the electoral college, Trump’s transformation of the Republican party into a sycophant base and personal following, the cultural decline of America witnessed in rising opioid addiction, gun killings, and suicides, the Muller Report and Democrats outmaneuvered by Trump, and the Impeachment of Trump in 2019.

Listen to my hour interview discussing the major themes and conclusions of my just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020′, with Guns & Butter radio show host, Bonnie Faulkner.

In this part 1 interview podcast, discussion focuses on Neoliberalism in Historical Practice, in contrast to most analyses of Neoliberalism as Idea. Themes include: the 3 major restructurings of US capitalism in the 20th century, with Neoliberalism as the 3rd such restructuring; the origins of Neoliberalism in the material and economic crisis of the 1970s; the evolution and change in Neoliberal policies in US capitalism from the late 1970s through George W Bush; the crisis in the Neoliberal policy regime with the global economic crash of 2008-09; the failure of the Obama administration to fully restore Neoliberalism momentum; how Trump policies have represented an effort to resurrect Neoliberalism in a new, more aggressive and virulent form; and why Trump’s policies to date represent only a partially successful restoration.

A follow up, Part 2 interview with host, Bonnie Faulkner, is forthcoming to be posted next week. Discussion will focus on the growing contradictions within the Neoliberal policy regime in the 21st century; the deep technological and material forces undermining driving the contradictions; and why the 2020s decade will require yet another, fourth restructuring of US capitalism that may fundamentally differ from the Neoliberal experience of the past four decades. Also discussed is how the material forces and Neoliberal policy are behind much of the decline and demise of US democracy form and political restructuring underway in the US since the mid 1990s.

TO LISTEN TO THE PART 1 Interview with Bonnie Faulkner GO TO:

http://gunsandbutter.org/blog/2020/01/23/neoliberalism-from-expansion-to-stagnation