Comments on: Wall Street protesters challenge Reagan Revolution

By: SanPa

SanPa — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:03:35 +0000

Conservatism isn’t about conservation, preservation, hope, mom, or apple pie. In the end, conservatism is about the GOP returning to the party’s platform of core values. And those core values were most clearly implemented during in the Reconstruction Era … an era of Carpetbaggers, Barons, Tycoons, lawlessness, exploitation, ignorance, and poverty. Looking beyond the sound bites and clever slogans and slurs impugning of the progressive GOP movement that molded a modern global power, it is certain that the citizenry will be less prosperous in a conservative America.

By: Saje3D

Saje3D — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 00:09:33 +0000

What this article ignores is the fact that without government, money is the ONLY power that remains. Those who rail against government tend to forget one thing–WE are the government, and reducing our power merely increases the power of wealth.

By: Prof_Kennedy

Prof_Kennedy — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:38:06 +0000

This historical reference is good — figuring roots of neoliberal revolution. One might also think about various roots and historical frames of OWS, moving from 1989 to 1968. See http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/285 3/arab-spring-occupy-wall-street-and-his torical-fram

By: injuntrouble

injuntrouble — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:19:26 +0000

Here’s is sound bite for you:

‘Corporations are not people, they are not persons, they are not citizens and they are not human beings. They are only legal entities and they only have the rights that We, the People, allow them to have’.

By: David867

David867 — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:50:16 +0000

The article, like the protesters, misses completely what caused the recent downturn. It wasn’t anything inherent in Reaganism, repeal of Glass Steagal, or capitalism. It was the Fed under Greenspan and Bernanke, forever holding interest rates at artificially low levels by flooding the debt markets with dollars. The growth in money supply during the nineties was breathtaking. Too many dollars always leads to either inflation, asset bubbles or both. Everything else is a sideshow…until Bernanke starts raising interest rates and stops ‘printing’ dollars (which would finally force de-leveraging and loan work-outs), the longer this will drag out.

By: joe_jag

joe_jag — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:54:08 +0000

SOUND BYTE: Arab SPRING vs Wall Street FALL.
1.Social engineering does not work.
2.Goverment has no capacity or skills to create
3.I have never seen an intellectual movement which ended in anything good or useful.
Intelectuals can be tolerated as long as you keep them out of the kitchen. When I want to eat I don’t need a nutrition professor, I need a cook. Start working and stop talking.

By: ossefogva

ossefogva — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:04:41 +0000

Reagan’s “revolution” has persisted for the simplest of reasons–IT WORKS. Free markets have improved the well-being of literally billions worldwide, including China and India. Read “The Commanding Heights” by Yergin to see why freedom has triumphed.

By the way, the USA was founded on the core principle of limited government, with carefully enumerated powers given to the state and all other power resting with the people. It’s not the Reagan revolution—it’s the American Revolution, which changed world history immeasurably for the better.

By: SanPa

SanPa — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:48:15 +0000

Just as demand side Keynsian policy was over used, so too was Stein-Laffer supply side policy impactful in an opposite direction. Supply side theory has been the driver of modern policies from relying on imports to importing workers to relaxing regulations … all to add resources into an economy straining with ever increasing coindicent deficits.

The supply side cycle is well past its prime, yet conservatives via the Tea Party movement cling to a notion that more supply must be good. While a reversion to some demand side policy must occur, policy makers need awareness of past mistakes to avoid the same.

By: Fishrl

Fishrl — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:52:45 +0000

They took too much and kept it all for themselves. They gained too much influence over the economy, and they recklessly crashed it. Then they expected us to pick up the tab while they continued to pay themselves 8-figure salaries.

That wasn’t economic liberalism. It was a crime.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 04:47:34 +0000

Chystia, I also saw you on CNN this morning and you could have quoted the jobs created statistics by republican presidents compared to democratic presidents over the past 50 years and maybe the wall street journal columnist would have lost some of his bluster! No contest, particularly since the last president Bush created zero over his two terms! So much for his job creating friends.