Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sachs Support Occupy Wall Street Movement; Goldman Pissed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sachs Support Occupy Wall Street Movement; Goldman Pissed



    November 12, 2011
    The New Progressive Movement
    By JEFFREY D. SACHS
    OCCUPY WALL STREET and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America. Historians have noted that American politics moves in long swings. We are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1 percent and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest. The overarching challenge of the coming years is to restore prosperity and power for the 99 percent.

    Thirty years ago, a newly elected Ronald Reagan made a fateful judgment: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” Taxes for the rich were slashed, as were outlays on public services and investments as a share of national income. Only the military and a few big transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ benefits were exempted from the squeeze.

    Reagan’s was a fateful misdiagnosis. He completely overlooked the real issue — the rise of global competition in the information age — and fought a bogeyman, the government. Decades on, America pays the price of that misdiagnosis, with a nation singularly unprepared to face the global economic, energy and environmental challenges of our time.

    Washington still channels Reaganomics. The federal budget for nonsecurity discretionary outlays — categories like highways and rail, education, job training, research and development, the judiciary, NASA, environmental protection, energy, the I.R.S. and more — was cut from more than 5 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 1970s to around half of that today. With the budget caps enacted in the August agreement, domestic discretionary spending would decline to less than 2 percent of G.D.P. by the end of the decade, according to the White House. Government would die by fiscal asphyxiation.

    Both parties have joined in crippling the government in response to the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors, who above all else insist on keeping low tax rates on capital gains, top incomes, estates and corporate profits. Corporate taxes as a share of national income are at the lowest levels in recent history. Rich households take home the greatest share of income since the Great Depression. Twice before in American history, powerful corporate interests dominated Washington and brought America to a state of unacceptable inequality, instability and corruption. Both times a social and political movement arose to restore democracy and shared prosperity.

    The first age of inequality was the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century, an era quite like today, when both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons. The progressive movement arose after the financial crisis of 1893. In the following decades Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came to power, and the movement pushed through a remarkable era of reform: trust busting, federal income taxation, fair labor standards, the direct election of senators and women’s suffrage.

    The second gilded age was the Roaring Twenties. The pro-business administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover once again opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess, this time culminating in the Great Depression. And once again the pendulum swung. F.D.R.’s New Deal marked the start of several decades of reduced income inequality, strong trade unions, steep top tax rates and strict financial regulation. After 1981, Reagan began to dismantle each of these core features of the New Deal.

    Following our recent financial calamity, a third progressive era is likely to be in the making. This one should aim for three things. The first is a revival of crucial public services, especially education, training, public investment and environmental protection. The second is the end of a climate of impunity that encouraged nearly every Wall Street firm to commit financial fraud. The third is to re-establish the supremacy of people votes over dollar votes in Washington.

    None of this will be easy. Vested interests are deeply entrenched, even as Wall Street titans are jailed and their firms pay megafines for fraud. The progressive era took 20 years to correct abuses of the Gilded Age. The New Deal struggled for a decade to overcome the Great Depression, and the expansion of economic justice lasted through the 1960s. The new wave of reform is but a few months old.

    The young people in Zuccotti Park and more than 1,000 cities have started America on a path to renewal. The movement, still in its first days, will have to expand in several strategic ways. Activists are needed among shareholders, consumers and students to hold corporations and politicians to account. Shareholders, for example, should pressure companies to get out of politics. Consumers should take their money and purchasing power away from companies that confuse business and political power. The whole range of other actions — shareholder and consumer activism, policy formulation, and running of candidates — will not happen in the park.

    The new movement also needs to build a public policy platform. The American people have it absolutely right on the three main points of a new agenda. To put it simply: tax the rich, end the wars and restore honest and effective government for all.

    Finally, the new progressive era will need a fresh and gutsy generation of candidates to seek election victories not through wealthy campaign financiers but through free social media. A new generation of politicians will prove that they can win on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and blog sites, rather than with corporate-financed TV ads. By lowering the cost of political campaigning, the free social media can liberate Washington from the current state of endemic corruption. And the candidates that turn down large campaign checks, political action committees, Super PACs and bundlers will be well positioned to call out their opponents who are on the corporate take.

    Those who think that the cold weather will end the protests should think again. A new generation of leaders is just getting started. The new progressive age has begun.

    Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the author, most recently, of “The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity.”
    OK, maybe he's a different Sachs.

    What the movement needs is smart people, like Mr. Sachs, to help them build a sustainable public policy platform. A bunch of kids on the streets isn't going to cut it.
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

  • #2
    good article dashi
    "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

    "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

    Comment


    • #3
      That's poor analysis even by Sachs' standards.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you for not contributing to this thread.
        “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
        "Capitalism ho!"

        Comment


        • #5
          "They are most likely the start of a new era in America."

          WTF?

          Comment


          • #6
            He means that we'll all be living on the streets.
            “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
            "Capitalism ho!"

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, ok. I was worried he thought the things he talked about in his article would actually happen. I mean, it'd be awesome if some hot chick singing cover songs on YouTube was in the White House, but I don't think our civilization has advanced to that point yet.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sachs' central contention that Reaganomics is responsible for the decreased percentage of GDP devoted to non-defense discretionary spending is ridiculous. Non-defense discretionary spending has decreased largely because entitlement spending has crowded out other spending while total US government expenditures have remained at around 20% of GDP. Reagan didn't succeed in cutting the size of government; Washington spends roughly the same amount of GDP as it did in 1980. The difference is that much of the money that used to be allocated to discretionary programs now goes toward transfer payments.



                Intelligent liberals understand that rising entitlement spending is limiting to the government's ability to perform necessary functions and making it increasingly unlikely that the government will ever again be seen by the public as an institution capable of solving problems rather than creating them. Sachs is not an intelligent liberal, however, and seems to think a bunch of halfwit protestors are the makings of a new progressive movement that will somehow overcome Americans' inherent aversion to tax rates significantly higher than the historical average and allow for an unprecedented amount of government spending. This is incredibly naive, even for the author of The End of Poverty.
                Last edited by Tupac Shakur; November 13, 2011, 17:30.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This graph also doesn't show the effect that medicare and medicaid have on state expenditures, which cuts deeply into our ability to pay for education and transportation.
                  Last edited by Hauldren Collider; November 13, 2011, 17:59. Reason: didn't see the date on the graph
                  If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                  ){ :|:& };:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tupac Shakur View Post
                    Sachs' central contention that Reaganomics is responsible for the decreased percentage of GDP devoted to non-defense discretionary spending is ridiculous. Non-defense discretionary spending has decreased largely because entitlement spending has crowded out other spending while total US government expenditures have remained at around 20% of GDP. Reagan didn't succeed in cutting the size of government; Washington spends roughly the same amount of GDP as it did in 1980. The difference is that much of the money that used to be allocated to discretionary programs now goes toward transfer payments.


                    Intelligent liberals understand that rising entitlement spending is limiting to the government's ability to perform necessary functions and making it increasingly unlikely that the government will ever again be seen by the public as an institution capable of solving problems rather than creating them. Sachs is not an intelligent liberal, however, and seems to think a bunch of halfwit protestors are the makings of a new progressive movement that will somehow overcome Americans' inherent aversion to tax rates significantly higher than the historical average and allow for an unprecedented amount of government spending. This is incredibly naive, even for the author of The End of Poverty.
                    Thank you for contributing to the thread.
                    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                    "Capitalism ho!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                      Much/most of that white bar is defense and obamacare, if I recall correctly. This graph also doesn't show the effect that medicare and medicaid have on state expenditures, which cuts deeply into our ability to pay for education and transportation.
                      Damn, the GAO is incredibly prescient.
                      “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                      "Capitalism ho!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ah, I didn't see the date on that graph--nevermind. The military probably consists of a lot of that white bar, regardless.
                        If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                        ){ :|:& };:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Defense spending also needs to be cut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yes, although it isn't growing the way social security and medicare are, which makes the nature of its cuts different.
                            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                            ){ :|:& };:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A cut is a cut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X