Thom got me involved with politics when I was younger. He used to have Bernie on weekly for a call in segment. It really changed how I viewed politics and I ended up volunteering for his campaign.
I have always thought that IF Bernie was allowed to become the candidate instead of Clinton, he would have defeated Trump and then he as the POTUS would have taken the country to the real democracy. Besides perhaps he could have strengthened a little the Democrats Party. I mean he as an independent could put motivations to the Democrats to elevate standards and work more for the people. What you think?
One of the real struggles in educating people on these issues is how certain issues become viruses of the mind, and spread like a disease; and so people end up supporting political positions that will undermine their own interests. How can that be penetrated in a way to wake people up to the deeper threats to their own interests? Hartman has great insight; how can his message penetrate where it is most needed? It’s a real challenge. At 78 I’m aware that I am no longer in a real middle class despite a Masters Degree and what would have been a good retirement. My vision of spending my last days in relative comfort has disappeared; I’m now going down the ladder I climbed. I hear a lot of peers expressing the same frustrations. I just hope his message can reach the right ears to help us shift directions.
Absolutely. Thats important too but when you critique the neo liberal dems you gain more support because people see you as more well rounded not polarized and one sided
I was sent to Washington, D.C. in September, 1980 and was present during the Inauguration of Ronald Regan. I immediately sensed a retrograde action taking place, and warned people to expect us to march backward 30 years. Ironically, many of the Hippies and protesters of the 1970s suddenly jumped ship and landed on the Regan wagon, attracted to the very materialistic Capitalism they opposed in the previous decade. What resulted was a section of the population who lived with blinders on, only seeing their own superficial affluence without recognizing the bigger picture. All this did was create more narrow-minded, superficial people who did nothing but create more problems than solve them.
Not quite. The intellectual hippies were well aware of Reagan's lies. But they were now middle-aged and working hard to make a living with children to feed. Capitalism is only a problem when it is unregulated and lacks a socialist balance. If they misjudged anything it was the belief that democracy would prevail over the next 43 years. Instead, we are now literally in the throws of the Nazification of America. In 1980, Vietnam era anti-war protesters were still high, not on marijuana, but on the overthrow of the Nixon administration and the end of the criminal and outrageous war. They can be excused for not seeing the sinister process that led to Gingrich, Norquist, the Tea Party, the Trump Insurrection - all unthinkable in 1980.
Did protesting government stop because the war ended, or because the draft ended. Nobody has been protesting any war, or basically anything else, since Vietnam. Except for 1 or 2 million man marches and a summer of Black Lives Matter, its been deathly quiet since 1974. Now the kids are on their iPhones 24/7. They barely get out of bed. Selfies and cat videos get the most attention.
Try teaching it in Florida. They'll arrest you for wokeness, socialism, communism, and desecration of the Confederate flag, the symbol of the white aristocracy and its right to rule according to Christian standards, which are figments of the imagination used only to discriminate according to race, gender, and wealth. Welcome back to the old South now taking over the world, again.
Stupid beyond belief,Clinton and Obama did nafta instead of reversing any Reagan policies.Obama,Clinton,Biden 20 years of Dem presidents doing nafta globalization and accumulating 2/3 of our national debt while not reversing any Reagan stuff.But somehow it's Reagans fault.
Thank you friends, Davi and Thom. David, for a chap as young as you you are brilliant. You sound like a person two decades more mature. Thanks. I always learn despite being 86 years of age. We are going to face painful times soon. I dislike that typical American term," tough".. its not tough but difficult. Please keep us all informed and we will spread your words. Thanks.
I first found him on AM radio in the early 2000s and have been listening (and then watching) for almost 20 years. Always learn something on his program.
Neither Joe nor his audience would understand one word of anything Thom said but it would be worth spreading this information to an even larger audience
David Stockman said in "Triumph of Politics (Over Policy)" that Reagan didn't recognize a distinction between personal and corporate income tax. Reagan was stuck in the Hollywood mindset that actors stop working for the year after two movies to avoid entering a higher tax bracket, and didn't understand that, unlike individuals, corporations can reinvest in themselves to reduce their tax burden.
Fascinating how the Chicago School Of Economics invaded the U.S. through horrible Reagan. I loved Naomi Klein’s book on the extent people suffered world wide from the plot to apply such politico-economic policies: “The Shock Doctrine.”
Salon 2011 article excerpt: "Carter, not Reagan, pioneered the role of the fiscally conservative governor who runs against the mess in Washington, promising to shrink the bureaucracy and balance the budget. Early in his administration, Carter was praised by some on the right for his economic conservatism. Ronald Reagan even wrote a newspaper column titled "Give Carter a Chance." The most conservative Democrat in the White House since Grover Cleveland, Carter fought most of his battles with Democratic liberals, not Republican conservatives."
Fantastic when we get to hear two smart folks have quality conversations. Have been seeing a lot more of this lately. Finally! Do more of this! Our side, SYNTHESIS. Let the others fight if they wish. Lets have smart conversations like you're doing here.
Truth and wisdom. This answers some important questions. Why do Republican politicians run the risky strategy of lying more often? Why is racism still a feature of 21st century western politics? Why are women’s reproductive freedoms a point f obsession for some politicians? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, is this a result of capitalism or does a democracy have a choice over this?
I am soooooo happy that one of my favorite political TH-camrs brought the OG Thom Hartmann on! I don’t think he gets enough attention from left TH-cam.
NOTE: Women did not burn bras; GIRDLES were rejected. Bras give support while girdles constrict. Betty Friedan, in the 1980s warned against the metaphoric girdle that blinds the eyes.
Hamilton's trade policy was from the Tudor plan adopted after Sir Thomas of Wales took out Richard the 3rd which begat Tudors and protestantism from UK to USA.
I live in Sweden. And his point about usa being farther into neoliberalism than uk applies on Sweden also imo. Sweden had a very strong social democracy after the second world war, but in the 80’s neoliberalism started to take a foot here also. And now we basically only have the “far left” who are not neoliberal. Also, regarding england and it’s state neoliberalism, majority of young people are opening up to authoritarianism. Actually to some extend same in Sweden.
@@coopsnz1 they don’t steal anything. We collectively pay into government so we can have a more functional society. And there should be more taxes, especially on richer people.
I'm a Brit living in Bali and also a regular here at the David Pakman show. I have just been out for a walk along Sanur Beach and discovered that Bali's first hotel built for the mass-tourism era, the Bali Beach Hotel, is currently being demolished to make way for . . . . . a Mayo Clinic hospital. Like the UK, Indonesia has its own state healthcare provision. So who is this new hospital for? It's for rich Asians, in particular rich Indonesians, as an alternative to flying to Singapore, the US or Japan for sophisticated healthcare. Rest assured, few if any of the ordinary local Indonesian people would be able to pay for the Mayo Clinic's services. British readers will remember the promises made by Boris Johnson during the December 2019 election campaign, namely that 40 new hospitals will be built across the country. Yep, you can bet the Tories have plans for 40 new hospitals indeed, perhaps more, but they won't be NHS hospitals, they will be private hospitals like the one the Mayo Clinic is now building here in Sanur, Bali, and if you, like the ordinary local Indonesian people where I live, can't afford to pay then tough, because Liz Truss's new "Conservative" government won't be wasting any time getting rid of the NHS, like the true Neoliberals they really are. Google "Indonesia Partners with Mayo Clinic To Build New International Hospital in Bali, Operational By Mid-2023".
The politics of Reagan are felt today in very negative ways. Large, controlling corporate entities, elimination of unions for workers (taking away collective bargaining, so no voice) and Trump loves this. Remember, Reagan was an actor and so is Trump.
Delayed hi from Sweden. Just an FYI: we've had over 30 years of Neoliberalism at this point, it's not pushing hard to get here, it's been the hegemonic system for decades.
That why your middle class beter off lowering taxes in Sweden , since in the 80s it was a communist country you couldn't own property. Australia heading to Sweden 80s hell you own no assets private sector
Good point, corporations are free to go anywhere in the world however Americans are not. To emigrate to another country from the US requires a lot of money to get residency which most Americans do not have, so they are not free to leave.
Technology may not be as agnostic as your guest might think. In fact, it might be responsible for many of the problems we face to today because 'neo liberalism' can be built into Technology, and Technology can be used reinforce neoliberalism either through data , infrastructure or the products themselves. The rise of the new right couldn't have happened without Technology and the use of big data. IBM once again playing a proud role in this.
Thom needs more eyes on his channel! He does great work and really knows the historical context of politics. But his TH-cam channel gets very small numbers.
I hate the term neoliberalism. I find it's unnecessarily fancy. I always cite how its definition has changed through the decades, even it has jelled into something more constant now. Although it's still a minefield when speaking historically. When asked for an alternative, I would say greed and corruption covers it mostly.
"Richer than the pharaohs". "Taxes encourage investment". Exactly why we used to buy houses back in the days that we could afford them. Income spent on rent is taxable.
The term neoliberasm is confusing because I see Orban and Reagan as more like authoritarian monopolistic corporatism. We could get better representation if we could get rid of gerrymandering.
Ronald Reagan is scum even though I voted for him back in the day. He said anyone from anywhere in the world can come to this country and become an American.
I think the period before Reagan and Thatcher perhaps knew some excesses (like strikes paralyzing society for weeks) and a lot of wild grass was cut off and served to feed Neoliberalism for a while. Corporations knew the government was no longer on the side of society but on theirs. This fueled optimism and trust. That's why it worked for a while is my gut feeling (no economist) but one might wonder what other option would have been much better. What was really going on??
Reagan just employed a CIA PSYOP that was first rolled out in Argentina under Nixon and called it “supply side economics.” To this day there is a major spread in economic equality in Argentina !!!
I’m Canadian so, since we have parties named both “Liberal” and “Conservative,” I find myself having to preface any discussion that involves either of those two terms and their “neo-“ prefixes. A big difference between Canada and the USA is that we find the equation between Liberal and Left inaccurate to the point of being wholly false, whereas in the US, the term “liberal” is almost always associated with socialism (which many low-brows in both counties equate with communism). But one similarity is the fact that conservative parties in both nations have moved so far to the right that they aren’t conservative anymore. Nomenclature isn’t that important in this respect in the USA because the term “conservative” or “Tory” (a term Canadian conservatives proudly call themselves) was shunned as colonially British, and “Republican” replaced them just like “Episcopalian” replaced “Anglican,” the Church of England. Nevertheless, the traditional definition of conservatism is grievously challenged by the shift to the right ever since Reagan kicked off the neo-right “revolution,” culminating in “The End of History,” but finding an aphelion shortly after 9/11 and decline ever since. I call today’s nominal conservative parties “neo-right” because they are not really conservative at all and can’t very well be called, as they once were, “NeoCons.” The concern is that many genuinely conservative voters still don’t get that their respective parties have been usurped by globalizing neoliberalism in service of stateless corporatocracy -that is, out to hobble democratic sovereignty and undermine nations’ capacity to tax and regulate private profit. Many real conservatives are moderate, right-of-centre citizens who have, since the 40-year neo-right arc began, gradually moved away from their nominally-and nominal-conservative parties. Those who remain with the nominal conservative ship as it sails towards the edge of its passengers’ flat earth defensively call the centre-right they’ve abandoned “the left.” We’ve seen how vicious neo-right rhetoric has become as it begins to suffer throes nearing the end of its arc. No sane person wants to be so-targeted, so there’s probably a much bigger faction of erstwhile conservatives who keep quite about their position-and that has the effect of slowing the process of aborting the neo-right movement (I for one consider it irredeemable) and creating a new conservative party that rejects malignant neoliberalism. I’m not conservative myself, but I believe partisan balance is a good thing. We Canadians have bonafide socialist parties in the federal parliament and most provincial assemblies. Most of us (I am a member of the socialist New Democratic Party) laugh when Americans call liberals “socialist” or “left” because, for us, Liberals are centrist and, since the neo-right movement succeeded in moving the entire set of parties rightward on left-right spectrum, have occupied philosophical territory on the centre-right which the Conservative Party of Canada has abandoned as it, just like the tRumpublican party, sails ever closer to the edge. There’s a reason why the Liberals have governed Canada far more times than the Conservatives (the NDP has governed several provinces but never the federal government): it’s called ‘campaigning on the left and governing on the right.’ Today’s federal government is a Liberal minority which must be supported by the NDP (the second such alliance in a row since 2015 when the 9year-old CPC government was defeated). Thus “Dippers” like me rather see Liberalism as a kind of liberal-conservative party (indeed, Canada’s first federal government was so-named) and not liberal in the classic, 19th century sense. But neither is the Liberal Party “neoliberal” because of its longstanding parliamentary relationship with the NDP (the NDP was created in 1961 and supported two Liberal minorities in the early 60s, the alliances implementing in universal public healthcare). But Liberal voters-who, btw, are very loyal-don’t mind just as long as the party is united (the post Jean Chrétien Liberals effectively punched themselves out of the running in a massive schism which allowed the CPC to govern by default, its first two governments being only minorities and its only majority being its last. This happened because many Liberal voters simply stayed home until it got sorted-and the CPC was soon after defeated). Many Dippers disapprove of the general shift rightward-of their own party, that is. Well, near’s I can tell, we’ve moved, at most, into centre-left territory the Liberals have abandoned as they pursue CPC-abandoned territory right of centre. But we’re still essentially a leftist party, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-public services, and pro-important public enterprises. Politically involved people are getting so sensitive these days. The confusion on both sides of the border is about what is conservative, not what is liberal or socialist (even if Americans tend to get the Canadian left and centre-left wrong). Thing is, we all know what conservative is supposed to be and many can see what the dilemma is for the partisan-right at this time. The problem, I think, is that a lot of moderate Tories don’t see it yet -or at least are in denial that their veteran parties have been ruined by globalizing neoliberalism-or the “neo-right.” Everything from now on will deal with this -uh-let’s just call it a “transitional phase.” Pray that it ends sooner than later. We all got big challenges that need all hands on deck.
I had an interesting experience with Ronald R. RR was going to put Tuition on the University of California,, so three hundred thousand people showed up at the California State Capitol. RR came out of the Capitol and began to talk. He said “ The people of California want ……..” and all 300,000 of us started chanting. “We are people, we are people” He just turned around and went back into the Capitol. And eventually put tuition on the U of C. which was the begging of the Super high costs of universities!!!!
If corporations are deemed "people" too, then why should they not be taxed and their international movements be governed as such ? Reagan wasn't the Great Communicator. He was the Great Bullshitter, who probably barely comprehended the nonsense he was pitching. Hated him from day 1.
Education will not necessarily help fight the aggressive capitalist ideas (misconceptions and lies) that help support billionaire's greed, considering how much is spent to get those ideas into our minds in the first place!
I hope you don't take this wrong David, but the reason I like your channel is that I view you as a younger, less learned version of Thom. And I'm hoping you keep doing what you do and keep learning, to someday carry on that torch (That torch being, informed and honest commentary with a liberal dose of integrity)
The inflation we're seeing now is a direct result of the soaring oil prices. In this civilization oil is the key commodity. Now, the environment cannot take much more co2, and remain habitable for us. It's almost as if we're at a tipping point on a number of fronts. These problems could all be solved with a transition to renewable energy - solar, and wind.
I always associated the term "neoliberalism" as emerging during the mid-late eighties when traditional liberalism kind of hit the skids (think Mondale), people who were wedded to the goals of traditional liberalism, but not necessarily the methods used by traditional liberals. Think Gary Hart or, to an extent, Bill Clinton.
pretty much the only change was allowing for private schools to take over. Liberalism has always been an ideology that has been for an elite. It never cared much about national borders. It wasn't aboout freedom and equal opportunity. It was about sorting out who they thought belonged to the elite, and remove the mandatory noble heritage to reach the elite. In their struggle to achieve that, they gave people public schooling. And it helped spark a democratization process. I'm not sure who coined the term, if it was people who were on the left, but thought they were liberals, but did not like the liberal wave, because they rightfully did not see their place in it, but that was because they were actually left, or if it was by the liberals themselves that wanted a new term, to market themselves better.
I’m not sure the middle class has shrunk from 60% to 45%. That begs the question what happened to 15% of the population, did they join the wealthy class?, since lower class is defined as the 20% of the population with the lowest income and wealth. I think the right metric may be looking at changes in the ratio of the median income (or wealth) in the top 20%, 10% and 1% over the median household income overall. Looking at these ratios over time (past 5 decades), I think we would see an ever increasing ratio indicating of course greater income disparities but also an extreme distortion of the income and wealth curves. This distortion creates a class that has so much wealth, power and influence that their wishes in terms of governmental policies at federal, state and local levels are met, while the needs of the remaining 80% or so of the population are largely discarded as unnecessary. This further exacerbates the disparities and I anticipate the potential of a tipping point. One that could take us back to a Keynesian economy and more social Democratic form of government. Or it could send us further into economic and social disarray ending in…
If taxes are too high then how did these billionaires pile up billions in assets? It is a simple question but just try to get a billionaire to give that question a straight answer.
Mr Pakman, please make Mr. Hackman speak about what happens in Mexico, where apparently neoliberalism nearly crashes the country and now it seems like there’s a pacific transit to democracy; which is something very rare. I mean the transit to democracy has always been taking a lot of lives before it can really work (like in Chile). I’d love to hear what he says. Thanks.
I'd be more interested to know how Hartman proposes taxing investment wealth, since an income tax wouldn't have much effect. It's also simplistic to say that billionaire's "don't buy more jeans" so don't benefit the economy. Doesn't their investment provide the capital that helps the economy grow?
Reagan was the worst thing to happen to America in the last 100 years.
@notfiveo those are the two I always think of.
dont forget GW and crew.. Giga Mega Ultra Ew
just like Tonald Dromph, he turned to politics when his career declined. a showbiz blowbag.
Worse than Chump? Doesn't seem possible.
@@tmcd5049 Made trump possible. Or, arguably, inevitable.
Thom got me involved with politics when I was younger. He used to have Bernie on weekly for a call in segment. It really changed how I viewed politics and I ended up volunteering for his campaign.
I loved breakfast with bernie
Pretty much me too. I started listening to him on Air America.
I have always thought that IF Bernie was allowed to become the candidate instead of Clinton, he would have defeated Trump and then he as the POTUS would have taken the country to the real democracy. Besides perhaps he could have strengthened a little the Democrats Party. I mean he as an independent could put motivations to the Democrats to elevate standards and work more for the people. What you think?
One of the real struggles in educating people on these issues is how certain issues become viruses of the mind, and spread like a disease; and so people end up supporting political positions that will undermine their own interests. How can that be penetrated in a way to wake people up to the deeper threats to their own interests? Hartman has great insight; how can his message penetrate where it is most needed? It’s a real challenge. At 78 I’m aware that I am no longer in a real middle class despite a Masters Degree and what would have been a good retirement. My vision of spending my last days in relative comfort has disappeared; I’m now going down the ladder I climbed. I hear a lot of peers expressing the same frustrations. I just hope his message can reach the right ears to help us shift directions.
I like to see a lot more of this type of interview than the non-stop commentary about Donald Trump and Republican outrage.
I agree. Pakman has to expand himself more on topics.
Absolutely. Thats important too but when you critique the neo liberal dems you gain more support because people see you as more well rounded not polarized and one sided
@@jimm2600 republicans AND neo liberal fake left can all go eat a bag of 🍆’s
Appreciate you both. "Democracy is not a spectator sport" is firmly seared in my mind thanks to Thom.
Two of my most loved American brethren working together, ya’ll keep it up!
Thom Hartmann's knowledge of history is mindblowing. So great to see him here.
Thom is a bottomless well of information and sound judgment.
Twisted visions of the past only expose how insane you guys are and how your path will not go far.
probably because of all those books behind him!
@@morphkogan8627 Out-of-date, partisan, hack/quack books.
@@rjkmusicmedia it’s actually yours that are revisionist accounts not substantiated by historical context and precedent. Anything to save face
I love when you interview Thom Hartman. I listen to The Hartman Report pod and his TH-cam daily, brilliant guy!
I was sent to Washington, D.C. in September, 1980 and was present during the Inauguration of Ronald Regan. I immediately sensed a retrograde action taking place, and warned people to expect us to march backward 30 years. Ironically, many of the Hippies and protesters of the 1970s suddenly jumped ship and landed on the Regan wagon, attracted to the very materialistic Capitalism they opposed in the previous decade. What resulted was a section of the population who lived with blinders on, only seeing their own superficial affluence without recognizing the bigger picture. All this did was create more narrow-minded, superficial people who did nothing but create more problems than solve them.
Not quite. The intellectual hippies were well aware of Reagan's lies. But they were now middle-aged and working hard to make a living with children to feed. Capitalism is only a problem when it is unregulated and lacks a socialist balance. If they misjudged anything it was the belief that democracy would prevail over the next 43 years. Instead, we are now literally in the throws of the Nazification of America. In 1980, Vietnam era anti-war protesters were still high, not on marijuana, but on the overthrow of the Nixon administration and the end of the criminal and outrageous war. They can be excused for not seeing the sinister process that led to Gingrich, Norquist, the Tea Party, the Trump Insurrection - all unthinkable in 1980.
Did protesting government stop because the war ended, or because the draft ended. Nobody has been protesting any war, or basically anything else, since Vietnam. Except for 1 or 2 million man marches and a summer of Black Lives Matter, its been deathly quiet since 1974. Now the kids are on their iPhones 24/7. They barely get out of bed. Selfies and cat videos get the most attention.
Always great to see Thom Hartmann. Your questions were incredibly insightful and to the point.
This should be taught in schools, I’ve never heard a more accurate summation of society before
Try teaching it in Florida. They'll arrest you for wokeness, socialism, communism, and desecration of the Confederate flag, the symbol of the white aristocracy and its right to rule according to Christian standards, which are figments of the imagination used only to discriminate according to race, gender, and wealth. Welcome back to the old South now taking over the world, again.
Manchin and Sinema assisting the GQP in continuing the Reagan disaster. It would be fascinating to see their text messages over the past five years.
Stupid beyond belief,Clinton and Obama did nafta instead of reversing any Reagan policies.Obama,Clinton,Biden 20 years of Dem presidents doing nafta globalization and accumulating 2/3 of our national debt while not reversing any Reagan stuff.But somehow it's Reagans fault.
Sir, best interview you’ve done so far! The part toward the end about the book “The Conservative Mind” I never knew and explains so much!
I cannot believe that the BEST content gets so few views while a MTG post gets a shit load - our society is truly diseased as Chris Hedges said
Thanks for this interview. It was great to see Mr Hartmann again.
Thom Hartmann is one of the best personality on a radio and television it's a great person great personality amazing human being
This is a great interview! So much substance.
You saw a fraction of it.
More Thom Hartmann please!
Young David Pakman interviewing Old David Pakman.
Yes!!!!
best comment lol
Maybe as an online chronicler only though doubtful, surely not as an activist.
*Familiar with Thom Hartmann's bibliography?*
😂😂😂
How wise you are. Bingo
Hi David, thanks for having Thom on and ps we miss you on Direct TV ❤
Thank you friends, Davi and Thom. David, for a chap as young as you you are brilliant. You sound like a person two decades more mature. Thanks. I always learn despite being 86 years of age. We are going to face painful times soon. I dislike that typical American term," tough".. its not tough but difficult.
Please keep us all informed and we will spread your words. Thanks.
Tom Hartman is excellent. Thank you sir!
Thom's show on RTV was one of the first progressive shows that I stumbled across. He's awesome!
I first found him on AM radio in the early 2000s and have been listening (and then watching) for almost 20 years. Always learn something on his program.
Finally, someone points out some business taxation basics that put the lie to the talking points. Thanks, David.
David and Thom are both such heavy hitters in the knowledge and analysis department. Always a pleasure to see Thom as a guest!
Thom is my favorite. Learned so much from him
Whoa... I've got to let my mind marinate in ALL this knowledge!
As always, David.. Fantastic interview!!
I love to see David and Thom together in this important program!!
Such a great interview. I learned so many important things.
Thom is the man! Is work on ADHD is great too.
I love that word MORBIDLY RICH
Yes that gave me a chuckle
I really wish Thom would be invited to the Joe Rogan podcast, just to inject some sanity.
Wouldn't that be something. Rogan seems genuinely curious about smart people, so a bit surprised it hasn't occurred. Maybe some day.
Well, I am not convinced that Joe Rogan will.
Neither Joe nor his audience would understand one word of anything Thom said but it would be worth spreading this information to an even larger audience
Thom is a treasure.
David Stockman said in "Triumph of Politics (Over Policy)" that Reagan didn't recognize a distinction between personal and corporate income tax. Reagan was stuck in the Hollywood mindset that actors stop working for the year after two movies to avoid entering a higher tax bracket, and didn't understand that, unlike individuals, corporations can reinvest in themselves to reduce their tax burden.
Love Thom Hartmann, he, like Bernie Sanders has been fighting the good fight for a long time.
Fascinating how the Chicago School Of Economics invaded the U.S. through horrible Reagan.
I loved Naomi Klein’s book on the extent people suffered world wide from the plot to apply such politico-economic policies: “The Shock Doctrine.”
Everyone should be required to watch this… wow. Great context for how we got here.
Salon 2011 article excerpt: "Carter, not Reagan, pioneered the role of the fiscally conservative governor who runs against the mess in Washington, promising to shrink the bureaucracy and balance the budget. Early in his administration, Carter was praised by some on the right for his economic conservatism. Ronald Reagan even wrote a newspaper column titled "Give Carter a Chance." The most conservative Democrat in the White House since Grover Cleveland, Carter fought most of his battles with Democratic liberals, not Republican conservatives."
I love listening to these two, even if much of it is over my head.
then you must be 12 years old.
Great interview!
Thx david for helping educate ourselves.
Fantastic when we get to hear two smart folks have quality conversations. Have been seeing a lot more of this lately. Finally! Do more of this! Our side, SYNTHESIS. Let the others fight if they wish. Lets have smart conversations like you're doing here.
Truth and wisdom. This answers some important questions. Why do Republican politicians run the risky strategy of lying more often? Why is racism still a feature of 21st century western politics? Why are women’s reproductive freedoms a point f obsession for some politicians? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, is this a result of capitalism or does a democracy have a choice over this?
Legalized bribery killed democracy -- Citizens United decision. Trickle-down is the economics of fascism now.
Imo, racism is still a feature of western politics because cowardice is still a feature of the Caucasian mindset.
2 replies and both of them hidden by TH-cam's AI.
Fascinating and said in a way a layperson can understand, wondering if the book is written that way as well.
Wow! Brilliant interview!
I am soooooo happy that one of my favorite political TH-camrs brought the OG Thom Hartmann on! I don’t think he gets enough attention from left TH-cam.
I lived in England I didn't know Reagon was that bad.
Wow. Excellent interview. Incredibly insightful 👍🏿
Awesome convo and interview, cheers
Reaganism was largely promoting ignorance.
I am super excited! Great interview as always! I just bought the book I will have it on Tuesday. Thank you David 😀
Mesterpiece! Thanks Thom.
WOW. So much packed in to that few minutes. So eye opening. Maybe "neoliberalism" should be called "pseudoliberalism"?
If you're not already, I highly recommend becoming a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann Program on TH-cam.
Wow. Just ordered his book. That comparison he made at the end. this is wild.
Pakman and Hartmann, The only two real menn!
Nice to hear from Thom. I used to watch his show on RT America.
Very informative segment. I will have to read that book.
I could have listen to another hour of this conversation and still felt like it wasn't enough.
Thom Hartman is the goat
Critical Thinking. It's like nails on a chalkboard to a conservative.
Turn it up!
Very good information. Very good interview
NOTE: Women did not burn bras; GIRDLES were rejected.
Bras give support while girdles constrict. Betty Friedan, in the 1980s warned against the metaphoric girdle that blinds the eyes.
Excellent interview,David. I’m going to read this book.
Hamilton's trade policy was from the Tudor plan adopted after Sir Thomas of Wales took out Richard the 3rd which begat Tudors and protestantism from UK to USA.
great interview
I live in Sweden. And his point about usa being farther into neoliberalism than uk applies on Sweden also imo. Sweden had a very strong social democracy after the second world war, but in the 80’s neoliberalism started to take a foot here also. And now we basically only have the “far left” who are not neoliberal.
Also, regarding england and it’s state neoliberalism, majority of young people are opening up to authoritarianism. Actually to some extend same in Sweden.
Government steal 50% of your money in Sweden if your in middle class
@@coopsnz1 they don’t steal anything. We collectively pay into government so we can have a more functional society. And there should be more taxes, especially on richer people.
@@veganvvarrior political get richer are you brainwashed
Left politics leader in my country own 5 homes he Corupt anthony albonese
Sweden will become nonwhite by the end of the century, Hahaha!
This is awesome
Epic crossover 🔥🔥🔥
I'm a Brit living in Bali and also a regular here at the David Pakman show. I have just been out for a walk along Sanur Beach and discovered that Bali's first hotel built for the mass-tourism era, the Bali Beach Hotel, is currently being demolished to make way for . . . . . a Mayo Clinic hospital.
Like the UK, Indonesia has its own state healthcare provision. So who is this new hospital for? It's for rich Asians, in particular rich Indonesians, as an alternative to flying to Singapore, the US or Japan for sophisticated healthcare. Rest assured, few if any of the ordinary local Indonesian people would be able to pay for the Mayo Clinic's services.
British readers will remember the promises made by Boris Johnson during the December 2019 election campaign, namely that 40 new hospitals will be built across the country. Yep, you can bet the Tories have plans for 40 new hospitals indeed, perhaps more, but they won't be NHS hospitals, they will be private hospitals like the one the Mayo Clinic is now building here in Sanur, Bali, and if you, like the ordinary local Indonesian people where I live, can't afford to pay then tough, because Liz Truss's new "Conservative" government won't be wasting any time getting rid of the NHS, like the true Neoliberals they really are.
Google "Indonesia Partners with Mayo Clinic To Build New International Hospital in Bali, Operational By Mid-2023".
Spot on
The politics of Reagan are felt today in very negative ways. Large, controlling corporate entities, elimination of unions for workers (taking away collective bargaining, so no voice) and Trump loves this. Remember, Reagan was an actor and so is Trump.
Business looks at labor as an expense to be minimized. They don’t see labor as human beings.
Delayed hi from Sweden. Just an FYI: we've had over 30 years of Neoliberalism at this point, it's not pushing hard to get here, it's been the hegemonic system for decades.
That why your middle class beter off lowering taxes in Sweden , since in the 80s it was a communist country you couldn't own property. Australia heading to Sweden 80s hell you own no assets private sector
@@coopsnz1 that's either an outright lie, or just very, very dumb. Hard to tell.
Good point, corporations are free to go anywhere in the world however Americans are not. To emigrate to another country from the US requires a lot of money to get residency which most Americans do not have, so they are not free to leave.
Technology may not be as agnostic as your guest might think. In fact, it might be responsible for many of the problems we face to today because 'neo liberalism' can be built into Technology, and Technology can be used reinforce neoliberalism either through data , infrastructure or the products themselves.
The rise of the new right couldn't have happened without Technology and the use of big data. IBM once again playing a proud role in this.
Thom needs more eyes on his channel! He does great work and really knows the historical context of politics. But his TH-cam channel gets very small numbers.
16:48 he make "social chaos" sound really nice.
I hate the term neoliberalism. I find it's unnecessarily fancy. I always cite how its definition has changed through the decades, even it has jelled into something more constant now. Although it's still a minefield when speaking historically. When asked for an alternative, I would say greed and corruption covers it mostly.
Thom is an absolute Gem. Dropping knowledge eveywhere
"Richer than the pharaohs".
"Taxes encourage investment". Exactly why we used to buy houses back in the days that we could afford them. Income spent on rent is taxable.
Love Thom Hartmann.
The term neoliberasm is confusing because I see Orban and Reagan as more like authoritarian monopolistic corporatism. We could get better representation if we could get rid of gerrymandering.
Ronald Reagan is scum even though I voted for him back in the day. He said anyone from anywhere in the world can come to this country and become an American.
I think the period before Reagan and Thatcher perhaps knew some excesses (like strikes paralyzing society for weeks) and a lot of wild grass was cut off and served to feed Neoliberalism for a while. Corporations knew the government was no longer on the side of society but on theirs. This fueled optimism and trust. That's why it worked for a while is my gut feeling (no economist) but one might wonder what other option would have been much better. What was really going on??
Reagan just employed a CIA PSYOP that was first rolled out in Argentina under Nixon and called it “supply side economics.” To this day there is a major spread in economic equality in Argentina !!!
Unfortunately, the people that should read Thom's book or even listen to this video are not going to...
Thom Hartmann is spot on as usual.
I’m Canadian so, since we have parties named both “Liberal” and “Conservative,” I find myself having to preface any discussion that involves either of those two terms and their “neo-“ prefixes.
A big difference between Canada and the USA is that we find the equation between Liberal and Left inaccurate to the point of being wholly false, whereas in the US, the term “liberal” is almost always associated with socialism (which many low-brows in both counties equate with communism). But one similarity is the fact that conservative parties in both nations have moved so far to the right that they aren’t conservative anymore. Nomenclature isn’t that important in this respect in the USA because the term “conservative” or “Tory” (a term Canadian conservatives proudly call themselves) was shunned as colonially British, and “Republican” replaced them just like “Episcopalian” replaced “Anglican,” the Church of England. Nevertheless, the traditional definition of conservatism is grievously challenged by the shift to the right ever since Reagan kicked off the neo-right “revolution,” culminating in “The End of History,” but finding an aphelion shortly after 9/11 and decline ever since.
I call today’s nominal conservative parties “neo-right” because they are not really conservative at all and can’t very well be called, as they once were, “NeoCons.” The concern is that many genuinely conservative voters still don’t get that their respective parties have been usurped by globalizing neoliberalism in service of stateless corporatocracy -that is, out to hobble democratic sovereignty and undermine nations’ capacity to tax and regulate private profit.
Many real conservatives are moderate, right-of-centre citizens who have, since the 40-year neo-right arc began, gradually moved away from their nominally-and nominal-conservative parties. Those who remain with the nominal conservative ship as it sails towards the edge of its passengers’ flat earth defensively call the centre-right they’ve abandoned “the left.” We’ve seen how vicious neo-right rhetoric has become as it begins to suffer throes nearing the end of its arc. No sane person wants to be so-targeted, so there’s probably a much bigger faction of erstwhile conservatives who keep quite about their position-and that has the effect of slowing the process of aborting the neo-right movement (I for one consider it irredeemable) and creating a new conservative party that rejects malignant neoliberalism. I’m not conservative myself, but I believe partisan balance is a good thing.
We Canadians have bonafide socialist parties in the federal parliament and most provincial assemblies. Most of us (I am a member of the socialist New Democratic Party) laugh when Americans call liberals “socialist” or “left” because, for us, Liberals are centrist and, since the neo-right movement succeeded in moving the entire set of parties rightward on left-right spectrum, have occupied philosophical territory on the centre-right which the Conservative Party of Canada has abandoned as it, just like the tRumpublican party, sails ever closer to the edge.
There’s a reason why the Liberals have governed Canada far more times than the Conservatives (the NDP has governed several provinces but never the federal government): it’s called ‘campaigning on the left and governing on the right.’ Today’s federal government is a Liberal minority which must be supported by the NDP (the second such alliance in a row since 2015 when the 9year-old CPC government was defeated). Thus “Dippers” like me rather see Liberalism as a kind of liberal-conservative party (indeed, Canada’s first federal government was so-named) and not liberal in the classic, 19th century sense. But neither is the Liberal Party “neoliberal” because of its longstanding parliamentary relationship with the NDP (the NDP was created in 1961 and supported two Liberal minorities in the early 60s, the alliances implementing in universal public healthcare). But Liberal voters-who, btw, are very loyal-don’t mind just as long as the party is united (the post Jean Chrétien Liberals effectively punched themselves out of the running in a massive schism which allowed the CPC to govern by default, its first two governments being only minorities and its only majority being its last. This happened because many Liberal voters simply stayed home until it got sorted-and the CPC was soon after defeated).
Many Dippers disapprove of the general shift rightward-of their own party, that is. Well, near’s I can tell, we’ve moved, at most, into centre-left territory the Liberals have abandoned as they pursue CPC-abandoned territory right of centre. But we’re still essentially a leftist party, pro-worker, pro-union, pro-public services, and pro-important public enterprises. Politically involved people are getting so sensitive these days.
The confusion on both sides of the border is about what is conservative, not what is liberal or socialist (even if Americans tend to get the Canadian left and centre-left wrong). Thing is, we all know what conservative is supposed to be and many can see what the dilemma is for the partisan-right at this time. The problem, I think, is that a lot of moderate Tories don’t see it yet -or at least are in denial that their veteran parties have been ruined by globalizing neoliberalism-or the “neo-right.” Everything from now on will deal with this -uh-let’s just call it a “transitional phase.”
Pray that it ends sooner than later. We all got big challenges that need all hands on deck.
I had an interesting experience with Ronald R. RR was going to put Tuition on the University of California,, so three hundred thousand people showed up at the California State Capitol. RR came out of the Capitol and began to talk. He said “ The people of California want ……..” and all 300,000 of us started chanting. “We are people, we are people” He just turned around and went back into the Capitol. And eventually put tuition on the U of C. which was the begging of the Super high costs of universities!!!!
Thank you for this.
If corporations are deemed "people" too, then why should they not be taxed and their international movements be governed as such ? Reagan wasn't the Great Communicator. He was the Great Bullshitter, who probably barely comprehended the nonsense he was pitching. Hated him from day 1.
Education will not necessarily help fight the aggressive capitalist ideas (misconceptions and lies) that help support billionaire's greed, considering how much is spent to get those ideas into our minds in the first place!
I hope you don't take this wrong David, but the reason I like your channel is that I view you as a younger, less learned version of Thom. And I'm hoping you keep doing what you do and keep learning, to someday carry on that torch (That torch being, informed and honest commentary with a liberal dose of integrity)
The inflation we're seeing now is a direct result of the soaring oil prices. In this civilization oil is the key commodity. Now, the environment cannot take much more co2, and remain habitable for us. It's almost as if we're at a tipping point on a number of fronts. These problems could all be solved with a transition to renewable energy - solar, and wind.
I always associated the term "neoliberalism" as emerging during the mid-late eighties when traditional liberalism kind of hit the skids (think Mondale), people who were wedded to the goals of traditional liberalism, but not necessarily the methods used by traditional liberals. Think Gary Hart or, to an extent, Bill Clinton.
pretty much the only change was allowing for private schools to take over. Liberalism has always been an ideology that has been for an elite. It never cared much about national borders.
It wasn't aboout freedom and equal opportunity. It was about sorting out who they thought belonged to the elite, and remove the mandatory noble heritage to reach the elite.
In their struggle to achieve that, they gave people public schooling. And it helped spark a democratization process.
I'm not sure who coined the term, if it was people who were on the left, but thought they were liberals, but did not like the liberal wave, because they rightfully did not see their place in it, but that was because they were actually left, or if it was by the liberals themselves that wanted a new term, to market themselves better.
I’m not sure the middle class has shrunk from 60% to 45%. That begs the question what happened to 15% of the population, did they join the wealthy class?, since lower class is defined as the 20% of the population with the lowest income and wealth.
I think the right metric may be looking at changes in the ratio of the median income (or wealth) in the top 20%, 10% and 1% over the median household income overall. Looking at these ratios over time (past 5 decades), I think we would see an ever increasing ratio indicating of course greater income disparities but also an extreme distortion of the income and wealth curves. This distortion creates a class that has so much wealth, power and influence that their wishes in terms of governmental policies at federal, state and local levels are met, while the needs of the remaining 80% or so of the population are largely discarded as unnecessary. This further exacerbates the disparities and I anticipate the potential of a tipping point. One that could take us back to a Keynesian economy and more social Democratic form of government. Or it could send us further into economic and social disarray ending in…
Home ownership is middle class , how many people own homes & small indpendant & franchise In usa 90%
If taxes are too high then how did these billionaires pile up billions in assets? It is a simple question but just try to get a billionaire to give that question a straight answer.
Love Thom Hartmann could listen to him all day.
Mr Pakman, please make Mr. Hackman speak about what happens in Mexico, where apparently neoliberalism nearly crashes the country and now it seems like there’s a pacific transit to democracy; which is something very rare. I mean the transit to democracy has always been taking a lot of lives before it can really work (like in Chile). I’d love to hear what he says. Thanks.
I'd be more interested to know how Hartman proposes taxing investment wealth, since an income tax wouldn't have much effect. It's also simplistic to say that billionaire's "don't buy more jeans" so don't benefit the economy. Doesn't their investment provide the capital that helps the economy grow?