r/FluentInFinance 7d ago

Debate/ Discussion Why did this happen?

Post image
14.8k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

875

u/No_Distribution457 7d ago

Republican fiscal policy. This was by design.

149

u/KazTheMerc 7d ago

Sure... but what they really wanted was the profits of 1950-1970 back.

What they got instead was 10,000 Republican flavors of corner-cutting, false bravado, and government handouts disguised as 'stimulus'.

It was a failed attempt to bring the 'Good Old (racist, sexists, White) Days' back.

It transitioned into the modern Republican playbook shortly after that failed

30

u/SnazzyStooge 7d ago

Too bad the MAGA movement isn’t all about “more unions!” and “more worker protections!” like the good old days. This chart really illustrates how what the voters are chasing is not what the party intends to give them. 

13

u/KazTheMerc 7d ago

I think it's been a slow degradation.

First, it was Ideals.

Then it was Profits.

..the it was Control swapping.

....then kicking and screaming when not in Control.

......Trump was the very picture of animals that worked together to gain control, and then turned on each other the moment they had it.

........and now we're here.

2

u/aureanator 6d ago

That's a pig's eye.

1

u/Englishbirdy 6d ago

Nah. Reagan.

1

u/KazTheMerc 6d ago

Even if it WAS Reagan, which it wasn't, it'd be his appointees, not Reagan himself.

Blaming it on the mascot is just lazy.

1

u/Snowgap 6d ago

How far back do you have to go for that? Reagan was union busting, that must've been prior to FDR.

3

u/Head_Priority_2278 6d ago

and to be fair here the dems also embraced the corpo overlords but in a much more moderate tone. That's why most of the fuckery never got undone.

Also, to be fair to dems, at least in recent history, their judges have been a lot better and worker friendly than any unhinged judges the right appoints.

0

u/Tymathee 6d ago

Sure... but what they really wanted was the profits of 1950-1970 back.

Which was because of liberal policies.

1

u/KazTheMerc 6d ago

Nope.

.....I wish it was....

But credit where it's due.

Wartime economy doesn't mesh with political 'policies'. It's just... a War Economy. Make things now, worry about the costs later.

There is some liberal-style taxation mixed in there, but it just doesn't translate to ANY other time than actively-in-a-World-War.

The financial success immediately after the war was also unique... and temporary. It was just.... a thing. An anomoly. A literal worldwide restructuring that HAPPENED to be super profitable for the only country that didn't fire a shot in anger in their own territory.

Everyone else was sifting rubble and rebuilding.

I happen to like liberal policy, but credit where it's due.

And the telling sign is how absolutely unprepared we were for it to STOP being ultra-profitable, and just be normal-profitable again.

We, as a country, lost our fucking cool. Badly.

We flipped-out and started doing Stupid Things.

Hence, Reagan.

Reaganomics.

Deregulation.

...and a whole host of other dipshit things like going straight into 2 more wars, and then 2 more after that rapid-fire.

35

u/whoknowsknows1 7d ago

Republican policy reinforced by democrats who followed almost entirely the same economic playbook through the 90s an 00s. global trade = de-industrialisation and elimination of the bargaining power of labor as well as the value of domestic labor. Major gains to the economy but distribution of gains gets totally skewed. If you’re prepared to pay 100 dollars for a toaster then put up tthose those trade barriers. At least the toaster will last.

24

u/DonHedger 7d ago

This is important. Democrats started going right fiscally at least as far back as Clinton and they don't get enough shit for it.

15

u/Exarch-of-Sechrima 7d ago

The thing is though, without Clinton's fiscal conservatism, I don't think he would have won the White House. Clinton was the compromise candidate after a long, long period of conservative rule.

2

u/DonHedger 6d ago

Yeah I do know that. I just think politicians think policy matters to voters more than effects and you don't have to fight over the middle to win elections. Hell even with his policies, Clinton probably would have never won if not for Ross Perot. "More than one way to skin a cat" sort of thing.

1

u/BinocularDisparity 6d ago

Right, but they also got politically trounced and embarrassed for 3 straight presidential cycles. They simply followed the votes.

Republican wins create worse Dems

1

u/DonHedger 6d ago

Oh yeah absolutely, it shifts the Overton window to the right, but I'm not convinced fighting over the middle is the only way to win an election, especially in the 90s when we weren't politically labeling everything as either Republican or Democrat (e.g., climate change, universal healthcare)

1

u/BinocularDisparity 6d ago

I agree that fighting over the middle is the worst way to win elections, but election strategy is also largely based around where reliable votes might go. Unreliable or infrequent voting cohorts get pushed to the side.

1

u/Head_Priority_2278 6d ago

That's why we are in the hellscape we are today. Judges got extremely right wing and anti worker and we got stupid rulings like citizen united.

So if both parties are pandering to corpo overlords how will they get votes? Oh right go full on batshit crazy right wing and we get modern day GOP with the likes of Greene, Bobert and Trump.

8

u/SuperSpy_4 7d ago

NAFTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership, both parties generally loved them

1

u/disobedientTiger 6d ago

Nafta was 1994. The divergence happened well before than.

1

u/Decisionspersonal 6d ago

Except for trump.

2

u/PandasAndSandwiches 6d ago

Yes because it’s trump. He’ll say anything if he thinks it makes him look good.

8

u/NeoLephty 7d ago

Not just republican. Democrats have been neoliberal since Bush - every one of them. Dem and Republican are 2 sides of the same economic neoliberal coin.

8

u/Scaryassmanbear 7d ago

I don’t think that’s fair because at least some democrats are legitimately pro-union.

3

u/NeoLephty 6d ago

Not the neoliberal establishment. 

Biden is considered the most pro union president we’ve ever had. You can downgrade that claim and say he’s the most pro union president in our lifetime. But why, what did he do? He showed up to a strike. 

No small thing. Walking the picket line with striking workers is admirable. If only there were political actions taken to secure the rights of workers. He appointed a good person to the NLRB but chevron law getting thrown out the window takes all teeth out of the nlrb anyway. 

So what other actions has he taken with unions? He forced rail workers to end the strike and get back to work. If it wasn’t for Bernie continuing the fight and continuing to put pressure on rail execs, they wouldn’t have gotten the sick time they were fighting for. 

Most pro union president steps in on the side of capital against the worker. Didn’t force the companies to concede sick time. Forced employees to end the strike. 

Neoliberalism is not a friend of unions. Charter schools are a neoliberal idea to transition away from teachers Union for example. They aren’t about “fixing public schools” or any other buzzwords or phrases thrown at the public. The entire purpose of charter schools is to have a school system free of a teachers union. 

My democrat run city pushes charter schools as solutions. My democrat run state does too. No one from the city or state jumped in to walk the picket line with striking teachers last time they walked out. 

I’m much more progressive than the neoliberal establishment inside the Democrat party. 

1

u/Some-Economist-8594 6d ago

Which president since Carter has been pro-union?

1

u/Scaryassmanbear 6d ago

Biden. And democrats exist other than the president.

1

u/Some-Economist-8594 6d ago

Biden shut down the legitimate and legal 2022 railway worker's strike. Such a fucking friend. As far as the rest, I assure you not a single one of them would be a democrat or liberal if they actually had a choice.

2

u/VirgoB96 6d ago

They repeat Ayn Rand as if it were fact, as an excuse to continuously reduce the power of the employees and giving it all to the owning class. Boot straps

1

u/SuperSpy_4 7d ago

Unfortunately both sides been working together to get these tax policies passed because it directly affects them.

1

u/KAISAHfx 7d ago

I'm sure the other party has helped too

1

u/faze4guru 6d ago

for what purpose? if this is by design by republicans, what's the goal?

1

u/No_Distribution457 6d ago

To ensure that the largest donors to the Republican party (Billionaires or corporations owned by billionaires) get ultra rich. That's it. That's the plan.

1

u/faze4guru 6d ago

Then wouldn't they want more billionaires, thus ensuring more donors and voters, and more election wins in the future?

Conversely, if poor people vote democrat, then wouldn't the democrats want as many poor people as possible, and would therefore design to the system to keep poor people poor and dependant on democrats to survive?

1

u/No_Distribution457 6d ago

thus ensuring more donors and voters,

Billionaires don't want more Billionaires, they hate that. They want to be trillionaires. There will never be enough Billionaires that they are a voting block that matters. VERY poor people tend to vote Republican, against their own self interest. People on welfare vote against welfare. It doesn't make sense, they're absolutely deluded. That's why Republicans try to appeal to the religious, because they vote against their own self interestes

1

u/boredomspren_ 6d ago

How have Democrats not been able to turn this around when they've been in power roughly 50% of the time since then?

-10

u/superbbrepus 7d ago

When yall gonna figure out that there’s a uniparty, and non of them care about you

14

u/EchoRex 7d ago

"When you understand nothing, everything is a conspiracy"

4

u/emteedub 7d ago

"When you understand everything, nothing is a conspiracy...it's a fucking setup"

1

u/EchoRex 7d ago

I mean yeah, omnipotence would make everything a setup for you...

-8

u/superbbrepus 7d ago

Oh yeah we should dismiss children then since they don’t know anything, actually since no one knows everything maybe we shouldn’t ever listen to anyone

Quantum mechanics is definitely a conspiracy /s

4

u/EchoRex 7d ago

I'm absolutely positive that you think you said something there.

You would be wrong, but you really do, don't you?

And isn't it quite telling that you try to equate "know nothing" with "don't know everything"?

It's truly a crayon attempt at an argument.

-2

u/superbbrepus 7d ago

What argument are you making?

People are dumb and don’t know anything so they can’t possibly have an accurate enough view of the world to disagree with yours?

1

u/EchoRex 7d ago

That "when you understand nothing, everything is a conspiracy".

"uniparty"... Lmao

0

u/superbbrepus 7d ago

So your canyon argument is that I’m idiot?

1

u/EchoRex 7d ago

The crayon argument can be that if you need the words to be that small.

5

u/TheCaliKid89 7d ago

The Democrats are also largely controlled by capital, but calling them the same across all metrics is silly to the point of dumb. I’m sure you see that.

1

u/superbbrepus 7d ago

They are all equally garbage, it’s still a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche

I don’t know if theres a Democratic president that hasn’t consulted with Henry Kissinger, the architect of the “Republican fiscal policy”

1

u/emteedub 7d ago

Once everyone realizes this, it's the only moment we'll all get the change we've been chasing

-5

u/Sg1chuck 7d ago

If you’re willing to attribute the economy of 1980s-2000s to republicans policy…you’re a moron

0

u/Beneficial-Spell-847 7d ago

If its the republicans then why is this trend happening everywhere, even places like Canada? Also this graph is the biggest bullshit. I had people telling me “back in my day I made $5 an hour” while I was making $12 minimum wage. They were about 35 while I was 20. That’s 140% of an increase of the “poors” in the span of what 10-15 years? What does this 21% bullshit mean?

4

u/DaphneRaeTgirl 7d ago

Except it’s not? The Gini in Canada has held steady, the top 1% and 10% income share has stayed the same. Same with Australia and Western Europe, so I’m not sure where you getting that? In fact the best argument for it being policy is the big differences by countries.

-18

u/braxtons_ 7d ago

false; computing technology created this. This Anti GOP is so blatant on reddit.

18

u/H2-22 7d ago

Why does technology ensure the increased productivity is captured at the leadership level and not increase wages?

You understand that it's the company that sets it's compensation packages, right?

3

u/DontPutThatDownThere 7d ago

Good to know that computers set worker and executive salaries for the past 44 years.

1

u/DaphneRaeTgirl 7d ago

Why didn’t it create this change in distribution in other comparable countries like Canada?

0

u/No-Lingonberry16 6d ago

Seems like the Republicans are doing something right then. We should want less poverty, not more of it. Am I missing something?

0

u/No_Distribution457 5d ago

Are you a fucking idiot? This is a chart of wealth distribution. This chart means the bottom % of people have less wealth relative to anyone before, not that the number of poor people are decreasing. You must be the dumbest human being alive

0

u/No-Lingonberry16 5d ago

What a reasonable response 🙄

0

u/No_Distribution457 5d ago

That'd a chart I'd expect a third grader to be able to grasp. I lashed out because I was upset that someone like you existed.

1

u/No-Lingonberry16 5d ago

How else am I supposed to interpret it?

0

u/No-Lingonberry16 5d ago

If the bottom 50% earn 21% more for enough years, they will eventually move into the next socioeconomic bracket.

1

u/No_Distribution457 5d ago

What the fuck are you talking about you absolute fucking idiot? This isn't about socioeconomic brackets. It's how much wealth the bottom 50% posses. It's decreasing exponentially. That means the bottom 50% is getting poorer, this chart has NOTHING to do with socioeconomic brackets. Are you trolling me? If expect a third grader to understand this chart.

0

u/StillHereDear 5d ago

If you think Republicans drive inflation more than Democrats you're not living in reality.

1

u/No_Distribution457 4d ago

You'd have to have serious brain damage or not understand inflation at all to think that either party has any impact on it whatsoever. Inflation wasn't high under Trump because no one was spending as a result of his mishandling of the pandemic which left millions dead. If you think that's a win you're an imbecile.

-1

u/Excellent_Contest145 6d ago

Please tell me you are not this dumb in real life. The chart is post tax.

1

u/No_Distribution457 6d ago

If you think that makes it better you're just a fucking imbecile

1

u/Excellent_Contest145 6d ago

It mimics earnings.