Politics USA: "CAGW" TV Commercial

[Roflkopt3r]

This ad of the origanisation "Citizens against Government Waste" from the USA kinda shocked me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM
So, yeah, CAGW... first, it feels like a Republican ad from start on, and it certainly agrees with the Republicans as Obama's left wing program is critizised. Also, it has shown several connections to tobacco industries in specific and several huge companies in general which they recieved donations from:

(...)CAGW has accepted donations from Phillip Morris, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Microsoft, Merrill Lynch, and Exxon-Mobil.

So, that's just a personal conclusion but I think it's plausible, to me it seems likely that the CAGW might be connected to either big industrial companies or the republicans (on the other hand - to be honest - isn't that almost the same? )

Unbelievable that such a thing could run on tv... that reminded me so much of the German nazi party NSDAP back in 1930s... I usually hate nazi comparison but this blunt usage of an attempt to create an enemy and brainless points just made me thinking like this.
Especially those points beeing made are totally stupid.
What made the US strong in the first place over the last century? The New Deal was a perfect starting point under famous president Roosevelt - coming from an economic crisis right back to a stable, wealthy nation.
What was this New Deal? Extreme socialism by todays standards. Maximum taxes raised to 75% temporarily. Minimum wages. Introduction of exchange and bank survey by the state.
As a resul the USA was strengthened, had a very very solid middle class and great economy.

So, this is where this propaganda is actually right - the biggest issue of the US is to turn away from these things. Minimum wages were reversed, sinking taxes, revising control over capital exchange places and banks. The economic liberalism damaged the USA big times. Social balances and power of the state were sacrificed for economic growth allone.
That the republicans are trying to use this for their campaign is nothing but absolutely cynic and stupid as well.
It's very sad to see that many voters (that's not exclusive for the USA, it's the same over here in Germany) still believe that economic liberalism including lower taxes was a good concept for the sake of everyone. Most of lower and middle incomes barely profit from tax lowering while the upper incomes do so alot.

By the way, I call this propaganda because it is closer to propaganda than to a campaign ad.
"Propaganda names a deliberate and systemic attempt of forming points of views, manipulating insights, and control behaviours. Propaganda in it's original sense is solely made for manipulation and securing rule."
As I wrote above, this is manipulative as it's simplified and distorted actual facts instead of quoting true facts.

Most of all: This ad isn't even as stupid as it seems I think. Even if the factual points are without value, it still induces fear of economic descend by showing the uprising superpower China as a future victor to the people of the weakened superpower USA. What do people in fear vote for? Conservative of course, looking for values, a little bit xenophobic, looking for protection and national superiority. It's not a logical choice, but an emotional one.

 

[redcometfm]

People busy with 9 to 5 jobs who dont have time to be aware of these issues -- this is sometimes the only way to make them aware of it. It's not pretty and both sides do the same thing. Sadly, its been a proven method for the last century since Hearst -_-'

 

[kkck]

The study of economics is by no means straightforward. The effects of the new deal are still widely debated and by no means are largely seen in the no less than ideal way you portray them. Opinions from economists vary from your no less than utopic view to even saying the new deal actually delayed the economic recovery. As for my own opinion about it, I don't think the new deal itself was that took the economy out of the depression. I do think it had a part but I don't think it would have worked had the US not entered WW2 which basically doubled its GDP in a couple of years and brought unemployment from a double digit number to basically 0.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Well, there's an easy way of at leasting calling some good points of the New Deal or rather the negative aspects of turning away from them:
In 1950, principals of a firm earned 30x as much as their employees in average. Today, it's 300x. The middle class is shrinking -not a pure U.S. phenoma but happening in many industrialised countries- for the sake of profits, good for growth. But at the same time the economics totally destabilize as this money, previously owned by the middle class, now flows around at stock exchanges or is beeing hoarded by richs. In the US, this combination created a gigantic financial bubble in the housing market - everything for the sake of short term growth of course - and as the survey of stock exchanges and banks was reduced over the years, it got totally out of control.
You're certainly right when saying that second world war was a nice event for US economy, but it might've been a much better choice to keep the stability and not trading it for growth on the long run even for economy - And definitly for the people.
But that's just an economic point of view on this.


Just found an interesting article about this topic in this weeks SPIEGEL (German weekly news magazine), for title story: "Die verzweifelten Staaten von Amerika" - The desperate States of America.

When the flight controllers went on strike, Reagan fired them; He untied telecommunitactions, speditions, banks and financial institutions. He lowered top tax rate from 70% to 28%.
So the USA became a different land, a radical one, a liberal/free one, a consequent and bold one. Exports from other countries rushed for American market. [...] The deregulation of stock markets increased demand for shares as money investment. [...] The importance of banks increased, since the 70's the banking industry doubled their profits; Short before the latest crisis, 40% of US business profits came from the financial industry.
Healthy? Sustainable?
Fast money was too attractive. 40% of Havard graduates took jobs in financial industry, back then before the crisis. They earned three times as much as their fellow students in other jobs - the trade of financial products became more lucrative than the production of wares.

Since the rest of economy had to be kept happy, the consumption couldn't stop, it required bigger cars, bigger houses, consumers contributed more than 70% to overall economic performance. The consumers spent more than they earned, saving ratio sunk. Stagnation or sinking loans were replaced by compansated by taking credits. This means lower interests were necessary. [...]

I guess everyone sees where this is heading at: Todays desastrous instable US economy. The title is chosen as for the first time most US citizens lost their optimism for a wide recovery.

Also contains some quotations of Robert Reich - professor of politics at California, Berkeley, and employment minister 1993-1997:

The rich are getting richer, top 0,1% earn as much as bottom 120 million people. The rich try to buy elections, Rich says; and the state wouldn't help the poor. (...) The fundamental problem rather was that the people did not earn enough, so America's wealth was focussed in a small upper class.
And that's why the radicals are getting noisier day by day: "Hatred on immigrants, charges against China, scepticism against free trade, all discussions are beeing exaggerated.
(...)
Americans tend to dramatise, "Coping mechanisms" Reich calls that (...).

 

[kkck]

Well, from my understanding the whole thing about the middle class decreasing is itself controversial and in all honestly I am not familiar with it. Now, it is completely true the social difference in itself has increased in the USA but that is not the same thing as saying middle or lower class people are poorer than they were before (at least until the current recession). From my understanding, on average incomes have in generally increased in USA and lifestyles have improved.

As for the bubble thingy, I don't really see how that was caused by the hoarding of wealth. That was caused by the subprime loans. I don't see how loaning money to people who do not have a sliver of a chance in hell of paying could be considered something the rich -or even the irrational right wing nutjobs(but who knows, I could be wrong about that bit lol)- would do. Had that money not been loaned then real states prices would not have gone so high to begin with and banks would be fine for the most part and in turn the financial markets would not have fallen like a card castle in a tornado. Now, obviously there are deeper issues here, it never is that simple for the most part, but I don't think it was precisely the hoarding of the rich which led to this whole thing (at least it was not the only factor).

On another note, I don't think distribution of wealth and growth have to be completely separated. Obviously there is a constant exchange at all times between them (if you distribute wealth then obviously growth will stop) but I do think both necessarily must go together, going towards one side completely won't help at all.


edit: I did some reading regarding the whole subprime thing, particularly on how the right wing nutjobs contributed to the whole crisis. What I got is that the whole bubble was a sort of joint effort between democrats and republicans (not a conspiracy theory though, just as expression). The democrats put in their part by allowing money to be loaned to people who could not pay. This is what set the foundation of the bubble. The republicans never really stopped this (seemingly listening to the democrat opinion that subprimes were financially sound) and wall street encouraged the subprimes for profit. Still, rather than this being the republicans fault it seems like a joint effort....