I’d be willing to beat one of the conditions agreed upon for the debate was the requirement to address Trump as President Trump or Mister President. That guys ego, plus it ties into the lie that he was really elected in 2020.
you may be right. I am reliably informed that when Bill Clinton accepts a speaking engagement the contract stipulates he be addressed as Mister President
It's not just for that event -- the former guy compels all those around him, his lawyers, his aides, his sycophants, to call him "President." He's operating a shadow government in his own mind.
I think Trump actually called Harris a “Marxist communist fascist socialist,” which is like calling someone a Progressive liberal conservative republican.
I agree that people in Smallville, Kansas may know everything that people in Manhattan (both Kansas and New York) know. I wonder if the people in Manhattan, NY know everything that people in Smallville know. Knowledge is not only found in urban areas.
I remember writing a paper as an undergrad (early 1980s) comparing US economic policies to this of the Soviets. Nixon's price controls were still "recent" history. Reagan's "trickle down" was new (and untested). Seems to me the debate over which is best is still ongoing.
Insightful, balanced commentary of today's events and seasonal nationally recognized columnist {"Tuesday Morning Quarterback" Gregg Easterbrook's columns are always worth a read. They are thought-provoking and provide a broad view of world events.
Interesting take. I think Point Four on immigration gets to an oddity in today's discourse. While Mickey Kaus has always been on top of this, it is hard to have high wages and a generous welfare program when anyone can enter the country. But today, those who purportedly support those of lower income and want generous welfare are typically on the side of unregulated immigration (and vice versa), which make this more difficult.
An interesting and provocative piece. You should know that you are not alone. In the 1937 Modern Library edition of The Wealth of Nations, Max Lerner wrote the introduction, where he opined that Adam Smith's ideas naturally led to those of Marx.
The top tax bracket in California is actually 13.3% - technically 14.3% if you make over a million dollars a year. The extra 1% is to subsidize mental health research. A little known surcharge the FTB sends your way. I agree with you that a lot of Marx’s ideas are sound but the taxation on wealth is out of line. Think about it - paying the top fed bracket of 37% and CA’s 14.3% means you pay 51.3% and work until July 15th each year until you take home any money for yourself. That’s ridiculous. And depressing. The progression as Marx saw it was to go from Capitalism to Communism to Socialism. BUT it only works if EVERYONE makes this transition. There are too many freeloaders in the world for this to ever happen.
I think the idea of progressive taxation is that there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to wealth. People who are taxed at those truly progressive levels (above 50 percent) have so much wealth that they're hard pressed to spend all of it. The world has gotten much better as wealth has been shared with the less fortunate. Being poor doesn't make somebody a freeloader.
Until Trump... you deducted the CA income tax from your Federal Tax. You still can - a little. So it's not 50%, its 37%, split between CA and the Feds, plus property tax, sales tax, gas tax, tolls, and whatever lottery tickets you bought. All State based.
I largely agree with the premise of this article but there's a missing piece that somewhat undermines that premise, to wit: the variant of Marxism that actually emerged and led to the massive social and economic devastation of the 20th century was Marxism-Leninism and I think contemporary use of "Marxist" as a pejorative is more rooted in "Leninist" concepts. This is why it is common to hear from strident social progressives that "true Marxism has never been tried". I know full well the chances of politicos and other members of the chattering class using more accurate and precise language to denigrate opponents is nil, but that doesn't lessen my annoyance (but, then again, I'm far too easily annoyed).
yes. if the former president had held some more general title, that could be used. Jimmy Carter asks to be addressed as "Governor Carter" and corrects those who call him "President Carter"
Thanks for a stimulating piece. But ouch! I personally would dial back on about half of that. Your main point about society having moved in directions Marx advocated would still stand, though.
I’d be willing to beat one of the conditions agreed upon for the debate was the requirement to address Trump as President Trump or Mister President. That guys ego, plus it ties into the lie that he was really elected in 2020.
you may be right. I am reliably informed that when Bill Clinton accepts a speaking engagement the contract stipulates he be addressed as Mister President
It's not just for that event -- the former guy compels all those around him, his lawyers, his aides, his sycophants, to call him "President." He's operating a shadow government in his own mind.
Thank you for calling out the use of President during the debate. That irked me for similar reasons as it irked you.
I think Trump actually called Harris a “Marxist communist fascist socialist,” which is like calling someone a Progressive liberal conservative republican.
PS could you enable comment editing, per chance.
I don't think Substack has comment editing. If it does I wouldnt turn it on, would not want people's comments altered by others
you can do it on the web, but not in the app. To be clear, you can only edit your own comments, as it should be.
I agree that people in Smallville, Kansas may know everything that people in Manhattan (both Kansas and New York) know. I wonder if the people in Manhattan, NY know everything that people in Smallville know. Knowledge is not only found in urban areas.
great point. People in NYC probably think Kansas still holds witch trials
Politicos are all Marxists?
I thought they were all Keynesians?😁
A quick anecdote:
I remember writing a paper as an undergrad (early 1980s) comparing US economic policies to this of the Soviets. Nixon's price controls were still "recent" history. Reagan's "trickle down" was new (and untested). Seems to me the debate over which is best is still ongoing.
Under Six, Mark Zuckerberg, not Zuckerman. Excellent piece.
Yikes! Thank you for catching. Fixing now
Insightful, balanced commentary of today's events and seasonal nationally recognized columnist {"Tuesday Morning Quarterback" Gregg Easterbrook's columns are always worth a read. They are thought-provoking and provide a broad view of world events.
Interesting take. I think Point Four on immigration gets to an oddity in today's discourse. While Mickey Kaus has always been on top of this, it is hard to have high wages and a generous welfare program when anyone can enter the country. But today, those who purportedly support those of lower income and want generous welfare are typically on the side of unregulated immigration (and vice versa), which make this more difficult.
Mickey has been swimming upstream on this issue for decades.
An interesting and provocative piece. You should know that you are not alone. In the 1937 Modern Library edition of The Wealth of Nations, Max Lerner wrote the introduction, where he opined that Adam Smith's ideas naturally led to those of Marx.
The top tax bracket in California is actually 13.3% - technically 14.3% if you make over a million dollars a year. The extra 1% is to subsidize mental health research. A little known surcharge the FTB sends your way. I agree with you that a lot of Marx’s ideas are sound but the taxation on wealth is out of line. Think about it - paying the top fed bracket of 37% and CA’s 14.3% means you pay 51.3% and work until July 15th each year until you take home any money for yourself. That’s ridiculous. And depressing. The progression as Marx saw it was to go from Capitalism to Communism to Socialism. BUT it only works if EVERYONE makes this transition. There are too many freeloaders in the world for this to ever happen.
great point!
also I will fix to 13.3
I think the idea of progressive taxation is that there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to wealth. People who are taxed at those truly progressive levels (above 50 percent) have so much wealth that they're hard pressed to spend all of it. The world has gotten much better as wealth has been shared with the less fortunate. Being poor doesn't make somebody a freeloader.
Until Trump... you deducted the CA income tax from your Federal Tax. You still can - a little. So it's not 50%, its 37%, split between CA and the Feds, plus property tax, sales tax, gas tax, tolls, and whatever lottery tickets you bought. All State based.
I largely agree with the premise of this article but there's a missing piece that somewhat undermines that premise, to wit: the variant of Marxism that actually emerged and led to the massive social and economic devastation of the 20th century was Marxism-Leninism and I think contemporary use of "Marxist" as a pejorative is more rooted in "Leninist" concepts. This is why it is common to hear from strident social progressives that "true Marxism has never been tried". I know full well the chances of politicos and other members of the chattering class using more accurate and precise language to denigrate opponents is nil, but that doesn't lessen my annoyance (but, then again, I'm far too easily annoyed).
I think it may be that the human future includes philosophical Marxism, if a post-scarcity economy is achieved
Absent using the former office title, what is the proper term of address for a former President? Is it simply "Former President (insert name)" ?
yes. if the former president had held some more general title, that could be used. Jimmy Carter asks to be addressed as "Governor Carter" and corrects those who call him "President Carter"
Thanks for a stimulating piece. But ouch! I personally would dial back on about half of that. Your main point about society having moved in directions Marx advocated would still stand, though.
Could not agree more with the observation of "Mister Trump". Please keep pounding away - hopefully someone will listen.
And thanks for the point by point breakdown of the Marxist points from the Communist Manifesto. Very illuminating.