Iamwhomiam wrote: The Dore piece was accurate and the Carlin bit too, Hard to believe how long ago his performance was, considering he died in 2008.
Everything Carlin says in the bit is correct.
The Jimmy Dore segment is mostly right but Dylan Ratigan makes a common mistake in his thinking.
It may be interesting to note that Ratigan's comments opening his appearance are from 2011, referring to the 2008 GFC, well before the Covid crisis. By 2019, we were in about the same place as before the GFC, but with even slightly higher employment, so I think his remarks were a little overheated. This recession is worse and will certainly end up with more financial consolidation than before.
In 2011 Ratigan said, "Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America."
What does that even mean?
The only way to meaningfully extract US dollars from the USA is for the federal government to tax them gone. (Some paper cash goes abroad outside the US system, but otherwise 90+% of USD live at the Federal Reserve.) But I don't think that's what he means.
I'm sure he means the financial sector extracting money from consumers. Ratigan says we "kick the can down the road" "using "taxpayer money" but he's confused about where the money starts.
Also, $10 trillion is pushing it as far as the existing savings that can be taxed. The government would have to, ah, spend the money into existence first. That makes things a little different, doesn't it?
On one hand Ratigan keeps saying that "taxpayers" are paying for all this, then on the other hand he says, "the only place to get money is from the government." Those two entities—taxpayers and the federal government—are two fundamentally distinct sectors of the economy, and which one's paying makes all the difference. So which is it? He makes the category error of treating US government finances like a household's. One creates the money, the other doesn't.
Ratigan refers to the Federal Reserve as separate from the government, a fallacy explained here. This contrubutes to his confused interpretation of the extractions he outlines:
- "through banking" — Yes! This part is right of course. Taxpayers (in aggregate) get net $$ savings from federal budget deficit spending—then the financial industry finds ways to take it away from them.
- "through trade" —No. In the US we get tons of real goods at cheap prices from overseas, it's a good deal. Of course the carbon footprint of all that manufacturing & transportation needs to be addressed immediately, but trade-wise the US is (was) doing okay. Imports are a benefit, adding real goods; exports are a cost—sending away real resources. Also, given the three broad sectors—government, private and foreign—a foreign trade deficit allows the US to more easily run a private sector financial surplus (the flipside of a government deficit), since one sector's deficit must equal another sector's surplus.
- "through taxes" — No. Through its dollar outlays, the federal government provides the net financial surplus we use to pay taxes. It's understood that when the government spends, some will be taxed back. It's a removal of money. Federal taxes are where dollars go to die.
Ratigan rightly says the need for universal income & healthcare is "obvious"—but he needs to stop thinking in terms of "kicking the can down the road." Future taxpayers will not be paying for it—rather, they will inherit the benefits of a healthier society.
Covid-19 has brought these basic issues to the fore, and there's a battle for our minds over it.
