By Matt Talbot
THE EDITOR ASKED ME TO CONTRIBUTE a weekly column here, and I accepted his offer, with two comments: A. I’m flattered to be asked, and B. I worry that The Herald’s standards may be slipping.
Joking aside, I really am flattered to be asked, and will do my best to live up to the high standards set by the other columnists here. Since I’ll be writing about political and social issues, I thought I might begin by laying out, in broad strokes, the principles and premises from which I write.
1. I observe that the closer to pure, unregulated laissez-faire a modern industrial economic environment gets, the more wealth concentrates at the top of the income scale and stays there.
2. Wealth concentration at the top tends, eventually, to destabilize the economy, and thus society. The New Dealers (from whom much of “liberal” economics comes) had a central insight: unregulated industrial capitalism tends to concentrate wealth, and thus power, in a smaller and smaller slice of people at the top of the economic pile. This eventually leads to crisis, because so much wealth is concentrated at the top that the rest of society does not have enough to buy what the elites are producing. Of course, elites can respond by loosening credit so their workers can go into debt to buy their stuff, but eventually the credit cards are maxed out and everything grinds to a halt.
And by “grinds to a halt” I mean people stop buying things, and then everyone — including the elites — stares terrified into the economic abyss. See October 1929 and September 2008 for some sense of what that experience is like.
3. The wealthy don’t have a history of selflessly surrendering power and wealth on the scale necessary to restabilize the economy and society. Power corrupts, and the more of it you have, the less likely you are to let go of it.
4. Serving the common good is the legitimate responsibility of governments at all levels, and systemic crises call for systemic solutions.
5. History has shown that, when governments act to counter the imbalances created by wealth concentration — indirectly through support for labor and steeply progressive income taxes, and more directly by imposing regulations, particularly on the financial sector, and by hiring unemployed workers to do things like build and repair infrastructure — it tends to stabilize the economy and society, which benefits everyone, including captains of industry. This serves the common good.
6. I think U.S. foreign policy has gone way too far down the road to imperialism. I think the idea of the U.S. as the world’s policeman/babysitter/emperor is arrogant and undemocratic, and will lead — in fact, is leading — to increasing despotism here at home. As far back as the 5th century BC, Thucydides observed that, “You Athenians, you cannot have both Empire and Democracy. One must destroy the other.” I favor an international order built on consensus and cooperation.
7. I think a too-cozy relationship between church and state lends itself to horrendous abuse; thus I favor separation of church and state as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
8. I believe diversity, racial and otherwise, makes a nation stronger. It’s worth pointing out that most of what is considered “pop culture” in the world is, or is derived directly from, African-American culture. Try to imagine an America without Count Basie, Charles Mingus, Miles Davis or Michael Jackson.
9. Problems in our poor neighborhoods are complex. I plan to write more about them — about racism and its legacy, poverty and the effects thereof, and a related breakdown of black families — both from a personal perspective (I grew up in Richmond and finished high school here in Benicia) and from a more empirical point of view.
10. I think the appalling situation in which 1 percent of the U.S. population is in prison is a grave injustice, and an indication of a massive failure of our society to care for its members. Howard Dean once asked, when “any competent kindergarten teacher can point out the two or three kids in her class that will likely have problems later on, why not intervene then, when it is cheaper and easier, rather than pay to incarcerate that same child for years when he’s grown?”
11. Furthermore, I think the appalling situation in which 1 percent of the U.S. population controls more wealth than the bottom 50 percent is both structurally unjust and economically unsustainable.
12. Generally speaking, I’d like my government to help people through social programs and attending to the common good; I’d like to minimize the government’s use of power along explicitly coercive lines — militarism, various police powers … the guys-with-rifles things.
None of the above is, by the standards of history or the rest of the world, truly radical, nor does it meet any meaningful definition of the favorite word of the American political right these days, “socialism.” In fact, most of it would have been considered mainstream, sensible, middle-of-the-road liberalism before 1980 or so.
We need a new New Deal. We need vastly higher taxes on the wealthy, and we need to use the money from those tax revenues to finance a Works Progress Administration for the 21st century. We need to give ordinary workers a far greater say in how our economy is organized, and in how the goods of economic activity are distributed. The elites have so gamed the system in their favor that they have begun killing the golden-goose working and middle classes. The greed of the oligarchy needs to be restrained, in order to save the system itself. More on this in future columns.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
So basically another Obama lover spreading the dear leaders word.
Dear “Watching,” it would be well to practice your art while fully awake, not just in the usual disinformation-bubble, knee-jerk conditioned dream state of your typical sort.
Talking about re-education in your next post…..You sound like a true blue communist, and reading many of your posts you appear to fit that bill comrade.
Robert, Considering that this is Matt’s first post, it’s bizarre that you’re already complaining about Matt’s next post.
Sorry Robert, I actually meant my comment to go to “Watching”, not you. Unfortunately this commenting system won’t allow me to retract my comment.
I missed where I mentioned Obama in my column.
That said, it is worth mentioning that on many issues, he’s actually pretty far to the right of what used to be mainstream liberal policies.
A most welcome hello. Good to see fresh blood here. I’ve set the stopwatch to see how long it is going to take for somebody, anybody, to use a specific term to describe your political leanings. I think you know of which one I speak.
Thanks Thomas. And yeah, it seems to be a habit of the right to describe any policy to the left of the Cato institute as “socialism.”
Looks like it was about 59 minutes.
Mr. Talbot, as a progressive Democrat, lifelong poet, former local laureate and frequent writer for the Benicia Herald Forum, I fully agree with everything you’ve written above. I look forward to following your contributions with great interest. I thank Marc Ethier for bringing you aboard. We may not succeed in re-educating our pseudo-conservative radicals, but we will shore up the morale and clarify the vision of many.
Thanks, Robert.
I actually have hope for our friends on the right, since I was once a Reagan Republican (was I ever that young?) and came to my senses when presented with the empirical consequences of Reaganist economic and tax policies.
RMS stated:as a progressive Democrat, lifelong poet, former local laureate and frequent writer for the Benicia Herald Forum, I … I … I…
Ahhh, Robert the ever modest.
Well stated! I agree with Mr. Talbot in every way.
So I guess Mr. Talbot conservative comments are not welcome? Do you accept comment/opinions that do not agree with your political stance? If you do, just what would you like the comments/opinions to be. You did mention Cato. Are any other comments/.opinions acceptable to you? If so please state what comments/opinions you would accept as very exceptible. Are you that hard left to not accept an comment/opinion that does not agree with your very liberal stance. Please explain.
Bob, when did Mr. Talbot say conservative comments are not welcome? Mr. Talbot has not only accepted comments here (like he had a choice), he always responds to them.
As a thought I do believe your politcally thinking is very liberal/socialist. Prove me wrong.
Bob – Your comments seem not to be terribly responsive to anything I wrote. Where did you see me saying that “conservative comments are not welcome” or that I would only “accept comment/opinions that…agree with [my] political stance?”
As to your second comment, I really have no idea what you mean when you say that my political thinking is “liberal/socialist.” How do you define socialism? I suspect that “socialism” as defined by you bears very little resemblance to anything that would be recognizable to real, actual socialists.
Matt read your last paragraph. It tells it all. If that is not Liberal Socialist just what is it.
Bob – Again, you haven’t told me what you mean by “Liberal Socialist.” What are the distinguishing features of socialism, in your understanding?
Pay attention to what President Obama is doing. You will now have a clear explanation.
There are millions of your fellow-Americans who are Liberals. They should all get off your lawn.
“…and B. I worry that The Herald’s standards may be slipping.”
Bingo.
My late older brother was a curmudgeon, so your comment made me smile.
I like that you can take my comment with a grain of salt. Your article still sucks balls, but at least I respect you for it now. 🙂
Was he a Curmudgeon or a Crumudgen? Also don’t worry about Bobby Livesay, he can be a little off subject.
Matt,
Welcome to the world of being a contributor for the BH. Previously we engaged briefly, you impressed me as a person who was sensible, as well as civil, traits that have been sorely missed from contributors from the opposition, as witnessed by the first of the fellow contributors to chime in on this thread.
I look forward to future exchanges.
Regards
Dennis
Thanks, Dennis – I too look forward to our future discussions.
Mr. Talbot –
You state, “We need a new New Deal.” What would that new New Deal include?
You state that we need vastly higher taxes on the wealthy. What do you consider wealthy? What taxes would you raise and to what level? What effective tax rate should middle class people pay? What effective tax rate should the wealthy pay?
You want to use the additional tax revenue from the wealthy for a new WPA. Is there any existing spending that you would cut other than the military? The Federal government currently borrows over 40% of its budget. Would you do anything to reduce that? You do realize that President Obama’s “Buffet Rule” that increases taxes on millionaires and billionaires was estimated to raise approximately $40 billion per year? Our current annual deficit exceeds $1 trillion. The Buffet Rule solves 4% of the deficit problem. Yet you want to take additional revenue from the wealthy and recreate the WPA. What annual budget would you recommend for the WPA? What level of deficit would you support? How much additional tax burden are you willing to bear?
Have you spent any time on Sand Hill Road? Have you asked the budding entrepreneur where their money comes from that allows them to pursue their dream of creating the next Facebook, Google, or Genentech?
Tom – thanks for your comment.
What do you consider wealthy? What taxes would you raise and to what level? What effective tax rate should middle class people pay? What effective tax rate should the wealthy pay?
The top marginal tax rate through most of the 1950s was north of 90% and was between 70% and 90% from the 1930s all the way up until Reagan took office. I’d start the negotiations there. I also think there needs to be more brackets – maybe 5 brackets starting at 50% on income over $500,000, increasing to 80 to 90 percent on incomes over $2 million.
As for effective tax rates on the rich (meaning after deductions, and taking into account that different parts of their income are taxed at different rates)? Let’s say, “wherever they were in, say, 1962, with the brackets adjusted to 2013 dollars.”
You want to use the additional tax revenue from the wealthy for a new WPA. Is there any existing spending that you would cut other than the military? The Federal government currently borrows over 40% of its budget. Would you do anything to reduce that? You do realize that President Obama’s “Buffet Rule” that increases taxes on millionaires and billionaires was estimated to raise approximately $40 billion per year?
A couple things: I think that, given the current economic situation, the federal government is actually borrowing too little. The current real interest rate is effectively less than zero, which means the government can essentially borrow money for free. There is quite a bit of infrastructure that needs repairing and building, and (depending on how you count) between 12 and 15 million people who currently need work. Record low borrowing costs + lots of infrastructure work + large available work force adds up to something which would go a long way toward pulling the economy out of the doldrums – and remember that direct government spending has much larger multiplication effects than tax cuts do.
There is a long run fiscal issue and a short-term employment issue – and fixing the employment issue will go a fair distance to simplifying the fiscal issue. More employed people, remember, means more tax revenue.
And the Buffett rule merely said that Millionaires shouldn’t pay less taxes than their secretaries. Well, ok, but why not have them pay significantly more?
Have you spent any time on Sand Hill Road? Have you asked the budding entrepreneur where their money comes from that allows them to pursue their dream of creating the next Facebook, Google, or Genentech?
Well, I work at a tech start-up, remember. You’ll need to show me convincing evidence that high marginal tax rates stifle innovation. Hewlett Packard, remember, was incorporated in 1947, when taxes were way more progressive, and as I recall things worked out ok for them. Same with Apple Computer (1977), Microsoft (1975), and so on. Taxes are but one factor – Silicon Valley is Silicon Valley for reasons other than tax rates.
You just explained your Liberal Socialist ideals very well. Not borrowing enough. Matt just what is enough? 20, 30, 40 tril? You tell me how, when and why this is going to get the economy going again. You are on a definite Socialist track. It will not work and never has accept in very small countries that exports is their economy. Nice try.
See my reply upthread
I did see everything you wrote. Nothing changes my mind on your political leanings. I describe them as I see them. Same as you are anyone would use the word Conservative. You even said President Obama was far to the right on many issues. Just what issues are you talking about? That comment has got me confused on President Obama. I am glad you are another voice on the Forum. I believe you will see both sides commenting on your future articles. Sometimes it is best to let the article represent what you said and let the folks have at it. Just a thought.
Bob – I keep asking this, and you keep not really answering, so let me try again: what do you, Bob, mean by socialism?
I do believe I have answered that question. Actually you have answered your own question. If you do not understand your own article I can not help you. You did try again but you do not even know what socialism is. So How can I help you when you do not even know. You need an answer from me. Do your own homework., Maybe you should tell the folks what you think it is and not me. I do not intend to give you much help. But I do suggest you re-read your article and pay careful attention on who you are asking to . solve the problems. Is that a hint enough. Most feature writers do not respond to the folks that comment. They would do it in a jouralistic manor with another article or an editorial. You write the folks will comment on what you write. You have responded ten times or 10 out of 35 of the comments. Very unusual.
Bob doesn’t know the answer. I’ve asked him this same question before and he cannot come up with an answer. He can label people “socialists” but he is totally incapable of defining the term.
My advice to Mr. Talbot, who has written a wonderful introductory column: Ignore Bob. He says it’s unusual you have responded so many times in this thread. Sadly, his seven comments here might not even be his average. Yet he never says much except to rail against the liberal demons in his head.
You are correct. But at least I do identify myself. So your comments are of no meaning.
Bob, one of the rules of rational discourse is that you need to define your terms. You keep saying I’m a socialist, but you won’t tell me what you mean by that.
That said: nothing I’ve proposed, in either the comments or the original article, is within a 10 hour plane ride of anything resembling socialism.
The fact that I respond to comments means that I like discussing things I write about.
Are these your rules? You do not like the fact that I said your article appears that you are a Liberal Socialist. If you are not just explain why you are not a Liberal Socialistr and tells us what your political leanings are. I think they are very apparent.
Please explain that lasr comment if you can. Are you a Democrat, Liberal Socialost or just a very left leaning person? Just tell us so we can understand your comments. I make my judgement based on your article and previous comments. You may not like it but it is my opinion. So be it.
MT:The top marginal tax rate through most of the 1950s was north of 90% and was between 70% and 90% from the 1930s all the way up until Reagan took office. I’d start the negotiations there.
People who favor penalizing success, be it for “fairness”, out of jealousy or for Marxian redistribution of wealth purposes, often point to the 50’s as being the target since we did it previously, or so they assert, What is conveniently over looked are several things:
1) The tax rate of 91 percent (in 1959) applied only to incomes over $3,200,000 (adjusted to today’s dollars).
2) A tax rate of 22% applied to all incomes up to $32,000 (adjusted).
3) Both Kennedy and Reagan adjusted the tax brackets down, JFK from 91% to 77%, and RR from 70% to 50%, in both cases tax revenues the following year rose, then the increase in revenue in subsequent years continued to rise at a sharper rate.
Today the tax rate on incomes up to $18,000 is 10% and on $72,000 it is 15%. Plus redistributive policies, such as earned income tax credits, means that people who end up in those lower brackets often end up receiving a refund, which exceeds the amount of taxes they actually “paid”.
penalizing success, be it for “fairness”, out of jealousy or for Marxian redistribution of wealth purposes
I would say that taxes are the dues you owe for living in such a great country. If the country’s been better to you, then the dues are higher. Also, the US before progressive income taxes was a great place to be rich, and a terrible place to be poor. Progressive income taxes, and things like unemployment insurance and social security, have helped correct that situation. None of that is “Marxian.”
1) The tax rate of 91 percent (in 1959) applied only to incomes over $3,200,000 (adjusted to today’s dollars).
Sounds about right…
2) A tax rate of 22% applied to all incomes up to $32,000 (adjusted).
I’d probvably start at a lower rate than that.
3) Both Kennedy and Reagan adjusted the tax brackets down, JFK from 91% to 77%, and RR from 70% to 50%, in both cases tax revenues the following year rose, then the increase in revenue in subsequent years continued to rise at a sharper rate.
Cutting taxes can stimulate economic activity (and thus revenue), but direct government spending is much more effective.
The last new deal started America down a horrible path so why wouldn’t a liberal want I do it again.
Thank you, Matt, for your articulate contribution to the Benicia Herald (BH) — it is a welcomed addition and might even help BH become a more thought-provoking publication with actual facts supporting an argument.
it also helps that you know how to string a few words together to form a grammatically correct sentence structure, which will be a pleasant relief :>)
w
Matt stated: eventually the credit cards are maxed out and everything grinds to a halt.
Last year according to the US Treasury Dept. we spent 360 Billion dollars on interest (2.5% current rate) payments on the national debt. President Obama says “we don’t have a spending problem”, Keynesian economist theory, which Obama supports and you are touting, requires greater government spending to “boost the economy” . Based on CBO projections it is anticipated that by the end of the Obama Presidency the payment on the current debt will be 890 Billion a year, due to increased interest rates (5.2%).
Large scale WPA style projects, which you are supporting, would greatly add to that debt payment. Do you believe that our “credit card” is not yet maxed out and we can therefore continue to use our card despite a payment which could consume as much as 30% of our national budget?
A couple thoughts, Dennis.
Firstly, there really isn’t a direct analogy between government finances and private individuals – families, for example, can’t legally print money – so the two situations are different.
Secondly, cutting spending now is a really bad idea, since it would actually make the country’s fiscal situation worse by harming growth and thus tax revenue – the current experience of countries in Europe bear this out.
We need to do things in the correct order: first deal with unemployment, and then tackle the country’s fiscal situation. Boom times are a great time to cut spending, and hard times are a terrible time to do so.
MT :”Firstly, there really isn’t a direct analogy between government finances and private individuals – families, for example, can’t legally print money”
But sound economic principles do apply equally to both:
** Spend what you take in
** Borrow for needs not wants
** Adjust spending based on changing income
** set something aside for emergencies
MT: ”cutting spending now…would actually make the country’s fiscal situation worse by harming growth”
Pure Keyensian economic theory is constantly being disproven as being viable, yet this thinking survives in the minds of indolent.
MT: Boom times are a great time to cut spending, and hard times are a terrible time to do so.
Can you give an example of any state or national government that reduced their spending as income increased?
** Spend what you take in
** Borrow for needs not wants
** Adjust spending based on changing income
** set something aside for emergencies
Well, I would call helping 12-15 million unemployed people a “need” and maybe even an “emergency.”
Pure Keyensian economic theory is constantly being disproven as being viable, yet this thinking survives in the minds of indolent.
Not sure how indolence figures into this, but Keynesian economics actually has ample support, both empirically and theoretically. The evidence of history clearly supports it: the great depression would have been a good deal worse without the WPA and other programs, and was ended by the ultimate Kaynesian stimulus plan – that is, by war production for the Second World War. The evidence from present-day Europe also supports it: those countries that cut spending the most experienced the highest unemployment and lower revenues as a direct result.
Can you give an example of any state or national government that reduced their spending as income increased?
During the boom of the late nineties, the US government began running surpluses and paying down national debt, and given reasonable projections at the time (and without the ensuing Bush tax cuts and uppaid-for wars), the projections were that the entire national debt would have been paid off by late last decade. Alan Greenspan was publicly worried by that possibility, as US treasuries are the world’s safe haven, and no national debt means a lot fewer treasuries.
I think you will find Matt that if you give congress the money they will spend it. In good times the spending sky rockets and they do not adjust for down times. Once the bar is upped there is no such a thing as lower ing it. Spend at the same rate each year they call it a cut . Very strange thinking. Just add taxes and never reduce the budget or take a stab at reducing the national debt. Just spend, spend and more spending.
WOW!!!
Where to begin……
Clinton grew the national debt by 35% in eight years.
In only one year, was there a modest 2% reduction.
The war did not end the depression, nor end true “unemployment” (when one considers how much of the work force was gone for military service).
FDR’s policies made the depression longer as well as deeper (books have been written demonstrating this).
The worse years of the depression were ’37 and ’38 after seven years of government spending (FDR carried on many of Hoover’s programs).
You seem proud that Clinton lowered the debt once by a piddling amount, yet you wish that Obama had grown it by more than the 53% he already has? You cannot have it both ways.
Since Reagan grew the debt by over 180%, I take it you believe that his economic policies were the right approach.
Dennis – again:
During the boom of the late nineties, the US government began running surpluses and paying down national debt, and given reasonable projections at the time (and without the ensuing Bush tax cuts and uppaid-for wars), the projections were that the entire national debt would have been paid off by late last decade.
Incidentally, recent history shows that debt gets worse under republicans, and better under democrats.
And this…
FDR’s policies made the depression longer as well as deeper (books have been written demonstrating this).
The worse years of the depression were ’37 and ’38 after seven years of government spending (FDR carried on many of Hoover’s programs). ?
…is not borne out by the facts. The depression actually bottomed out in 1933, and got better every quarter until 1937, when spending was prematurely cut back in an effort to reduce the debt. Austerity during an unemployment crisis is a terrible idea – was then, is now.
I will stand corrected: “worse” was the wrong word to use.
Unemployment peaked at 25% in ’32, and then dropped to 12% or so in ’36, then after prolific spending rose to about 20% during the second depression of ’37 and ’38. Thus seven years of spending did not restore the economy
Unemployment peaked at 25% in ’32,
[before FDR and the New Deal]
and then dropped to 12% or so in ’36
[when the New Deal was in full force]
then after prolific spending
[actually, as I said above, the New Deal was scaled back prematurely, and then unemployment…]
rose to about 20% during the second depression of ’37 and ’38
You will have to show me what “scaled” back means, in your context.
From ’33 to ’36 the federal budget rose continuously from 22 Billion to 33.7 Billion. From ’37 to ’39, it continued rising from 37 billion to 43 b.
Where was the scale back you mention?
From the above article:
4. Serving the common good is the legitimate responsibility of governments at all levels, and systemic crises call for systemic solutions.
More on spending to help the economy. See article below.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/04/want-to-fix-the-economy-spend-more-money/
Welcome to the fray, Matt. I appreciate with your unapologetic liberal perspective – altogether too few of us are willing to step forward as such since the right wing has so effectively and persistently cast “liberal” as a dirty word. Even more than your politics, I appreciate your willingness to reply in measured and constructive tones and with facts on these pages. Advice: don’t let it wear you down! This comment section has become a place for personal attacks and endlessly repeated harangues. If you ignore them, you will be accused of ignoring them 🙂 … but it will save your sanity as well as your argument if you refuse to go there. Oh, and, get ready – now the attack will be directed at me!
I would like to welcome Mr.Talbot to the Herald family of writers. I think that Mr. Talbot will find however, that writing a weekly column with a corresponding dead-line, is quite a different thing from taking pot shots at those you do not agree with in a blog. Now that those who are not familiar with Mr. Talbot have been tutored regarding his political direction, perhaps he can now begin to comment on the political landscape both locally and nationally. It is not always an easy thing to do and requires quite a bit of research and study just to keep up with facts. I would ask Mr.Talbot to respect the opinions of others in the future or expect to be on the receiving end of the negative comments of those he has disparaged with regularity in the past.
I would ask Mr.Talbot to respect the opinions of others in the future or expect to be on the receiving end of the negative comments of those he has disparaged with regularity in the past.
I do my best to respect people with whom I disagree, and argue with their positions on the merits.
American liberalism is a dirty word
You got something against Liberty?
Matt,
While I appreciate your feelings about how things are and should be I can tell you that I will not even bother to read your column if it devolves into the name-calling and general demonization that characterize much too much of what has appeared on these pages (and we certainly don’t need1000 word exposes to accomplish it if that is the objective). You express at some length your feelings about things and that’s fine, although I think you have come to some critical conclusions that are simply not correct. In any case, I know (and even love) many of the people who I hope we can all agree to call “re-distributionists”. All my life I have believed in making things better and working to make it so. We can’t do that if we don’t focus on facts, what those facts tell us, talking about real solutions and cease using this newspaper to simply smear other people.
I see no smears. Just different opinions and political identifications. I do agree the writer is not correct on his conclusioins. I do hope you are not talking about the use of the word Liberal Socialist. That term is a very common definitions now being used. thyer than that I total agree with your comment.
Sorry for the typo. Should be Other
I wasn’t referring to you – at least that I recall from reading your comments. If you don’t like the word smear how about “stereotyping”. I thought using the term “redistributionist” was a good substitute for socialist or progressive or whatever, as I think we too quickly get bogged down in definitions anyhow. Does anyone on the left object to using that term? Anyhow, I thought Matt’s column expressed a clear preference for that but I hope, again, we’ll focus on facts and outcomes rather than just feelings.
Thanks Reg I do understand what you are saying. I am not so sure there is a term the left is comfortable with unless they are called Progressives. I refuse to use that term. I do believe we are on the same thinking team.
Wow! Who would have guessed that the first contribution by a new writer would end up devolving into yet another pissing contest from the usual suspects in the comment section?
Thomas are you one of the usual suspects.