Hi, I'm coming to this a little late. I really liked how you've pulled all these threads together. I'm familiar with many of the ideas, but to see them all in one place is very helpful.
A couple of random thoughts/responses: Even though it at times it seems pointless, I find some meaning in pushing back against what seems like impossible odds. A small example of this is that I'm part of a Kernza (a perennial wheatgrass from The Land Institute) Growers Co-op. I don't hold out a whole lot of hope that its going to pan out, but I agree with you that changing land use/holding patterns is very important. My work on the farm is a small effort in that direction.
You might find this video playlist of my first years experience growing kernza an interesting diversion.
As an aside, you mentioned in the post that people are stuck watching Ads on YouTube. While true for most/many, it is possible (as you may already know) to avoid Ads completely, without paying, by installing (free) AdBlock and uBlock in your browser. I've had them on my computers for 10+ years without any (to the best of my knowledge) troubles.
I think that's unprecedented. Yet somehow entirely predictable.
Not that I know all the details of this new development, but that sort of thing is almost certainly what the Glass-StegallAct of 1933 was intended to prohibit. It appears to me as if it's a situation that could only occur after the dissolving of the barrier between the investment banking and mortgage banking sectors that Glass-Stegall imposed.
President Bill Clinton continues to be the name most mentioned as responsible for the repeal of the Glass-Stegall act. It's true that he actively supported the repeal, and his failure to veto was crucial in its passage. But the popular narrative continues to imply that the repeal was primarily his doing. Glass Stegall could not have been repealed without the prior introduction and passage of a Congressional bill to repeal it. Applying the same convention that supplies the name for Glass-Stegall, that bill is accurately termed the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Brierly(R) Act of 1999...yes, the sponsors were all Republicans, as was the Congressional majority vote that initially passed the Act in both Houses of Congress.
My intuition is that this fact was initially soft-pedalled at the time by "mainstream liberal" outlets of the day like the NY Times and the Washington Post, because it computes so poorly in the minds of politically naive Americans who actually believe that the labels (D) and (R) signify two opposing parties who hold entirely different views about how the economy is to be run. That conclusion held some substantial merit in 1933, when Glass-Stegall was passed. But by the time President Clinton (D) signed the Gramm-Leach-Brierly Act, that distinction was for the most part obsolete, and an illusion. But it was (and still is) a tacit imperative of the two parties and their elected leaders to uphold that facade, and the "legacy, mainstream" American continues to maintain the narrative that supports it. As does much of the Internet media, including many of the most well-known outlets at the margins.
Ironically, one of the consequences of that media misconception is that Democrat Bill Clinton is commonly thought to be the main motive force for the passage of Glass Stegall, while the role of the Republicans who wrote the bill is relatively unknown. Given the pivotal role the Gramm-Leach-Brierly act played in inflating the massive mortgage bubble that eventually collapsed in 2008, the Republicans are fine with this, of course. I'm reasonably sure I could find post-Crash statements by some Republicans insinuating that "the repeal of Glass-Stegall" was all Clinton's doing. And the same is true of NAFTA- an agreement negotiated during the Bush administration and signed by President George Bush I, Clinton's predecessor. All Bill Clinton did was to whip up the Democratic Congressional votes required for the NAFTA's passage. A critically important final step, but only the last one on a path largely built by the Republican Party "opposition."
I used to be confused by party labels, too, terribly so. Until I read the book America- What Went Wrong?, by James Barlett and James B. Steele- a duo of old-school investigative reporters who somehow retained employment at a large American daily newspaper in the 1980s and 1990s (albeit a "second-string" one- the Philadelphia Inquirer.) Portions available to read for free online http://www.americawhatwentwrong.org/about/
But I didn't really get a clear picture of the venality and absence of vision shared by the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans until I read Roger Morris' 1996 book Partners In Power: The Clintons and their America. In particular, the three chapters in Morris' book titled "Washington". Available to read free online, as it happens:
Anyone who reads those chapters will get an eye-opening summary of how Washington worked in the 1980s and 1990s. (Whether the reader can bring themselves to accept it is another matter. I dare anyone to offer a fact-based refutation of Morris' account, however.) The rest of the book makes for enlightening reading, as well.
Finally, as an account of Reagan/Bush era Washington by a thoroughly disillusioned insider, it's difficult to beat the 1991 book The Politics of Rich and Poor : wealth and the American electorate in the Reagan aftermath, by the Republican and one-time Nixon campaign architect, the recently departed Kevin Phillips. Also available to read for free online https://archive.org/details/politicsofrichpo1991phil
One factual error that I could detect: Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, and inaugurated January 1977. Not 1974. Other than that, taken as the latest edition of your overview of history, economics, and politics, this is your best and most comprehensive draft yet.
From what I can tell, anyway; economics has proved to be a steep learning curve for me. Not enough to fully comprehend, say, the history preceding and following the Bretton Woods agreement. Not enough to understand how Henry George's ideas could be applied to dismantle rent/mortgage speculation financial capitalism (not that you've included that in your analysis. I know a lot more than I used to. What I'd really like to see is a financial MBA, Wall Street investor capitalist, neoliberal economist, challenge your econ narrative, or that of Michael Hudson. I think the discussion would be educational.
Honestly, I think they're running from a narrative that's well-argued and supported, and overwhelmingly valid. Where are they? Running scared?
I have the same question when I lead with my chin by posting particularly provocative unorthodox policy recommendations on some questions. Daring the Professional Credentialed Experts to put me in my place. Like, come on. I can handled being refuted. Or- could it be that none of them are able to do that? Owing their success to jumping through the right hoops, rather than knowing what they're doing.
I'm on firmer ground in my knowledge of American politics and world history, where I find it next to impossible to disagree with you on anything. Other than the date of Jimmy Carter's election/inaguration, that is.
Hi, I'm coming to this a little late. I really liked how you've pulled all these threads together. I'm familiar with many of the ideas, but to see them all in one place is very helpful.
A couple of random thoughts/responses: Even though it at times it seems pointless, I find some meaning in pushing back against what seems like impossible odds. A small example of this is that I'm part of a Kernza (a perennial wheatgrass from The Land Institute) Growers Co-op. I don't hold out a whole lot of hope that its going to pan out, but I agree with you that changing land use/holding patterns is very important. My work on the farm is a small effort in that direction.
You might find this video playlist of my first years experience growing kernza an interesting diversion.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj5UDFGP0BjfNLkhz36IiZJUJ5xw-VIlp
As an aside, you mentioned in the post that people are stuck watching Ads on YouTube. While true for most/many, it is possible (as you may already know) to avoid Ads completely, without paying, by installing (free) AdBlock and uBlock in your browser. I've had them on my computers for 10+ years without any (to the best of my knowledge) troubles.
Thanks for putting your writing online.
Berry fan here. Keep doing what you're doing.
Here's a new development that's right in line with the modus operandi of Finance Capitalism outlined in this tour de force of a Substack post:
JPMorgan is about to spend $1 billion on hundreds of rental homes across the US on the way to becoming a megalandlord
Robert Davis
Nov 17, 2022, 9:01 AM EST
https://www.businessinsider.com/jp-morgan-to-acquire-1-billion-of-single-family-rentals-2022-11?op=1
Wall Street has purchased hundreds of thousands of single-family homes since the Great Recession. Here’s what that means for rental prices
Published Tue, Feb 21 20239:28 AM ESTUpdated Wed, Feb 22 2023
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html
yep
I think that's unprecedented. Yet somehow entirely predictable.
Not that I know all the details of this new development, but that sort of thing is almost certainly what the Glass-StegallAct of 1933 was intended to prohibit. It appears to me as if it's a situation that could only occur after the dissolving of the barrier between the investment banking and mortgage banking sectors that Glass-Stegall imposed.
President Bill Clinton continues to be the name most mentioned as responsible for the repeal of the Glass-Stegall act. It's true that he actively supported the repeal, and his failure to veto was crucial in its passage. But the popular narrative continues to imply that the repeal was primarily his doing. Glass Stegall could not have been repealed without the prior introduction and passage of a Congressional bill to repeal it. Applying the same convention that supplies the name for Glass-Stegall, that bill is accurately termed the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Brierly(R) Act of 1999...yes, the sponsors were all Republicans, as was the Congressional majority vote that initially passed the Act in both Houses of Congress.
My intuition is that this fact was initially soft-pedalled at the time by "mainstream liberal" outlets of the day like the NY Times and the Washington Post, because it computes so poorly in the minds of politically naive Americans who actually believe that the labels (D) and (R) signify two opposing parties who hold entirely different views about how the economy is to be run. That conclusion held some substantial merit in 1933, when Glass-Stegall was passed. But by the time President Clinton (D) signed the Gramm-Leach-Brierly Act, that distinction was for the most part obsolete, and an illusion. But it was (and still is) a tacit imperative of the two parties and their elected leaders to uphold that facade, and the "legacy, mainstream" American continues to maintain the narrative that supports it. As does much of the Internet media, including many of the most well-known outlets at the margins.
Ironically, one of the consequences of that media misconception is that Democrat Bill Clinton is commonly thought to be the main motive force for the passage of Glass Stegall, while the role of the Republicans who wrote the bill is relatively unknown. Given the pivotal role the Gramm-Leach-Brierly act played in inflating the massive mortgage bubble that eventually collapsed in 2008, the Republicans are fine with this, of course. I'm reasonably sure I could find post-Crash statements by some Republicans insinuating that "the repeal of Glass-Stegall" was all Clinton's doing. And the same is true of NAFTA- an agreement negotiated during the Bush administration and signed by President George Bush I, Clinton's predecessor. All Bill Clinton did was to whip up the Democratic Congressional votes required for the NAFTA's passage. A critically important final step, but only the last one on a path largely built by the Republican Party "opposition."
I used to be confused by party labels, too, terribly so. Until I read the book America- What Went Wrong?, by James Barlett and James B. Steele- a duo of old-school investigative reporters who somehow retained employment at a large American daily newspaper in the 1980s and 1990s (albeit a "second-string" one- the Philadelphia Inquirer.) Portions available to read for free online http://www.americawhatwentwrong.org/about/
But I didn't really get a clear picture of the venality and absence of vision shared by the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans until I read Roger Morris' 1996 book Partners In Power: The Clintons and their America. In particular, the three chapters in Morris' book titled "Washington". Available to read free online, as it happens:
https://archive.org/details/roger-morris-partners-in-power-the-clintons-and-their-america-1996-henry-holt-and-company-inc_202012/page/250/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/roger-morris-partners-in-power-the-clintons-and-their-america-1996-henry-holt-and-company-inc_202012/page/292/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/roger-morris-partners-in-power-the-clintons-and-their-america-1996-henry-holt-and-company-inc_202012/page/334/mode/2up
Anyone who reads those chapters will get an eye-opening summary of how Washington worked in the 1980s and 1990s. (Whether the reader can bring themselves to accept it is another matter. I dare anyone to offer a fact-based refutation of Morris' account, however.) The rest of the book makes for enlightening reading, as well.
Finally, as an account of Reagan/Bush era Washington by a thoroughly disillusioned insider, it's difficult to beat the 1991 book The Politics of Rich and Poor : wealth and the American electorate in the Reagan aftermath, by the Republican and one-time Nixon campaign architect, the recently departed Kevin Phillips. Also available to read for free online https://archive.org/details/politicsofrichpo1991phil
One factual error that I could detect: Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, and inaugurated January 1977. Not 1974. Other than that, taken as the latest edition of your overview of history, economics, and politics, this is your best and most comprehensive draft yet.
From what I can tell, anyway; economics has proved to be a steep learning curve for me. Not enough to fully comprehend, say, the history preceding and following the Bretton Woods agreement. Not enough to understand how Henry George's ideas could be applied to dismantle rent/mortgage speculation financial capitalism (not that you've included that in your analysis. I know a lot more than I used to. What I'd really like to see is a financial MBA, Wall Street investor capitalist, neoliberal economist, challenge your econ narrative, or that of Michael Hudson. I think the discussion would be educational.
Honestly, I think they're running from a narrative that's well-argued and supported, and overwhelmingly valid. Where are they? Running scared?
I have the same question when I lead with my chin by posting particularly provocative unorthodox policy recommendations on some questions. Daring the Professional Credentialed Experts to put me in my place. Like, come on. I can handled being refuted. Or- could it be that none of them are able to do that? Owing their success to jumping through the right hoops, rather than knowing what they're doing.
I'm on firmer ground in my knowledge of American politics and world history, where I find it next to impossible to disagree with you on anything. Other than the date of Jimmy Carter's election/inaguration, that is.
oops on the typo, fixin it
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=debate+michael+hudson