Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Don Evans's avatar

As a baby boomer, born in 1950, I've reaped the benefits of the kind of New Deal economy you propose. Reagan was the turning point in 1980 when he convinced people that government bureaucrats were incompetent and everything needed to be privatized. And we could pay less taxes as a reward. The result, 45 years later, is extreme inequality and a billionaire class that controls the government.

Wayne Teel's avatar

While your critique is correct about the distribution of power away from the public and governance, to corporations and wealthy shareholders, there is an error in your thinking. We do not have the capacity for unlimited growth. We cannot have it all. The wealthy have way too much of a pie that is shrinking, not growing. The only growth on the ledger is based on a fallacy, that drawing down natural capital does not shrink the available capital. It does. We have gotten ahead of the ability of natural resources to regenerate, things like forests, fisheries, and soils. These have limits, and we have already exceeded them. What does this mean? We can and should have a "New Deal" program that taxes the rich heavily and spends on health care, education, natural resource regeneration, and a switch to alternative energy. These are necessities. However, we have to learn to do more with less. We cannot grow in a way that draws down the ability of life's essentials to stay healthy. We need clean water, clean air, fertile and chemically free soils, regenerating forests that capture and store carbon, and more. Expecting growth to cover the felt needs of those raised on Amazon, Apple and Google will kill the planet just as much as Trump's over the top corruption. This is the reality. The problem, if you espouse this position (realistic as it is) you will never get elected because it denies the legitimacy of the American myth.

31 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?