Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "David Hoffman"
channel.
-
9
-
Anonymous Panacea I disagree - the DRAFT is the patriotic thing to do. War is ugly and if the "leadership" thinks it is justified they have to sell it to the whole nation when they have the draft. - There is a reason why they stopped drafting people (they could, but they don't do it). Now it is poor people or more indoctrinated people (coming from a military family) that get sent by old men into wars. Putting their life health, incl. mental ! health at risk.
Lawrence Wilkerson: 1 out of 5 new recruits comes from Lousiana. That is the economy and they have a lot of military families and a tradiciton. But more the economy.
The recruiters are all over the place in the high schools in the poor areas. They leave the wealthy areas alone. These affluenat (or at least solid middle class) families may parrot the patriotic or bellicose rhetoric - that is not hard when you know that you go to an expensive college, earn a good living later, avoid paying taxes - and let someone else do the dying.
On the contrary that class does not pay for war: not in trauma, death and if they can help it not even in taxes.
Sure the sons of politicians and wealthy and well educated families doged the draft (Trump had "bone spurs", sons of Congressmen had braces - no kidding, John Bolton the war monger extraordinaire joined the National Guard - that way he figured out he would be spared to be drafted into the Vietnamwar, he admited that he had no intention to die in a rice paddy). Bill Clinton and Senator Sanders did not go either. (I think these two at least voiced opposition to the war - while Trump just paid off a doctor so that HE did not have to go).
But these shenanigans were known if not too openly discussed in the media. And the draft meant at least the families of wealthy, smart, ambitious and well educated men KNEW they were dodging the draft. So they were not likely to cheer on the war while THEY had to excercise all kind of tricks to stay out of it.
Many were openly against the war once the casualties even hit well-off families, when the dying and harm was not restircted to low-income people or minorities.
The news are not interested in the fate of poor people or people of color. But when bad things happen to "people like us" the mouthpieces in the media get nervous. The Financial crisis hid solid middle class persons as well - or now the opiod crises. White people are hit as well.
The CIA importing drugs into the country to have dark budgets for death squads in Latin America in the 80s, the U.S. banks helping the drug dealers launder the money (they got a FINE, a bank was caught TWICE - and the regulators do not even try to find out).
That was not much talked about. When drugs were an epidemic in the 80s in minority communities they were thugs - and that was it. No talk about the enablers.
9
-
part 5 of 9 All right wing populists do the rhetoric of being for the little people - and they side immediately with the ruling "elites" and the industrial leaders if they come into power. (So in order to keep the little people engaged they have to tell them about trickle down economics, which is proven nonsense. Plus: scapegoating !)
Also typical for the far right: they make good use of scapegoats to rile up the masses which they need to get into power. Usually the foreigner, immigrants, other races, religions, Jews - now also feminists.
Anti-Jewish sentiments were widespread in Europe and in the U.S. - only when Hitler became the arch enemy that was somewhat suppressed in the countries that opposed Germany.
Anti-Jewish sentiments were carefully crafted throughout the middle age. There was a small clique that dominated society and had it all - and lots and lots of deprived people.
The unwashed masses had to be kept down and a good scapegoat was needed. So if anger would be vented - it would be against the scapegoat and not against those in power. That helped also the psychohygiene of the oppressed. They wanted to vent anger, but it was unthinkable to rant against the elite and it could be very dangerous.
So the Jews or the witches or later the protestants, hugenots, hussits were the much needed "enemy". The well established scapegoats provided a "rational" when things went wrong (the king started a war and they lost, the summer was cold and harvests were poor).
The Catholic church supported those in power and helped with the indoctrination (god set the king and the nobility at their place in society, and the common people must obey them) and they also supported the creation of the scapegoat narratives (Jews and witches).
Now, after the enlightenment that nonsense should have stopped. It got better, and many Jews also gave up the religious fundamentalism and integrated well into the respective societies. Most of the German Jews could not be told apart from the population. Looks, education, dress, behavior, they lived among the population, jobs.
If a family would move and no one knew them and they had converted to the Christian faith or were not very active in Judaism - you could not tell them apart. Maybe if they had a typical Jewish name - like Cohen or Rosenblatt.
Same in France, U.K., U.S. - and STILL there was resentment, even though those Jews were mostly very well integrated too. In central and Western Europe they were less hindered in their economic activities and therefore often successful, on average more so than the regular citizens and with some prominent really rich members.
Feudalism had a few on the top and many poor. And that did not change much with the advent of industrial mass production and capitalism. Only that now people who used to have modest wealth (a smithlock with a few workers, a small mill, weavers) lost in the new economy and became poor.
The poor were used to being mistreated and did not expect better - but these people were fiercly resentful. So a good scapegoat was needed as much as ever even though people were seemingly less superstitious and less dominated by the church.
Economics was not understood then. Those on the top certainly did not explain how it came that production and the workers that helped produce the articles became so much more efficient with machine use - and STILL that did not improve the lot of the commoners.
Then the Labor Movments and unions were on the rise - fiercly and violently opposed by the 1 % of course. Left ideologically is inclusive (the people supporting it not always, they can be quite xenophobic) - "Workers Of All Nations Unite" the slogan is feared by the powerful and wealthy (who DO UNITE and coordinate of course).
It is hard to understand how the German population could accept such mistreatment of Jewish people. Sure, they did not even know how horrible it was in the camps (that came later). However, Jews they were stripped of citizens rights, jobs, property and excluded from society (schools, jobs, no use of parks, cinemas) - that injustice was very obvious and happened right away. - It is also not clear what Jews had done to the population in Hungary, Poland, France, U.K., ... even in the U.S. to trigger covert hostility (which there never rose to the German level because they had legal protection - and the decent people did not have to fear for their life, job and property if they sided with Jewish fellow citizens in case of low level hostility).
The reason for the ongoing prejudices: the Industrial Revolution had produced lots and lots of losers AND capitalism cannot allow envy at those at the top or calling out economic injustices. But with Jews it was "allowed" to be jealous at their wealth. In case they were poor they were met with contempt like all the other poor people.
The Right promises to embrace the many and the little people - but they ALL have and need someone to exclude and to kick at.
Also to get enough emotional investment of the followers - because the agenda is not genuinely pro little people - so they have to compensate and offer other "incentives".
Banding together against a common enemy is the fastest way - and very effective - to unify masses of people. Another version: patriotism. To the point where people will gladly risk their live, health, and sanity in totally avoidable wars.
9
-
part 7 of 9 Economy between the wars: In the U.S. the unions had been crushed once more, the Roaring Twenties were another Guilded Age, massive increase in productivity, stagnant wages (but people were at least employed) - so in the long run the goods that were produced with ever increasing efficiency found not enough buyers who could afford them
Consumer debt on the credit card was the solution for the same problem from the 1980s on but it wasn't a thing in the 1920s). if the 1 % cannot make money of productive projects they resort to speculation and mergers (in the 1920s and again in the 1990s and full scale after 1998, see the GFC that broke in 2007.
Unlike in the 1930s Big Finance was not taken on the leash so they are at it again, dismantling even the weak restrictions right now - brace for the next massive crisis.
Anyway: rising stock markets in the 1920s made people feel rich, and optimistic. Even the lower income classes could be kept quiet. Things seemed to be fine - until the crash of 1929. Europe did not even have that era of thing seem to be O.K. if not splendid.
The really bad times in the U.S. were from end of 1929 on. In 1932 the Left (that had been crushed in the decades before - one of many times) rebounded. Unions got 1 million NEW members in 1932. The U.S. n population was just shy of 90 million people, assume there were 30 - 50 million families in the country - that gives you an idea how much public awarness the unions got.
The U.S. oligarchs remembered the 1917 Revolution in Russia, FDR was on the campaign trail in the U.S. and promised Hope and Change (and unlike Obama it was not just talk to get elected).
The U.S. did have fascist and Nazis supporters (they assembled in Madison Square Garden in New York), the industrial fat cats (Ford, Lindbergh, Kellogs, Rockefeller, ...) looked with envy at the many Europe countries going the fascist route. They financed some Nazi projects, eugenics etc.
The coup planning of 1934 against FDR got them nowwhere (thanks to General Smedley Butler) - they had to put up with the left populist and populare president (with gritted teeth no doubt).
6
-
5
-
part 8 of 9 The French occupation and the invasion in 1923 imprinted on every German how bad a thing it was that they did not have a reasonably sized army anymore - Maybe patriotic, nationalistic militias (many bitter and brave war veterans of WW1 around) would be a good idea ? - fast forward to the Brownshirts of the Nazis.
The "Conservatives" called the shots under the German emperor and had been all for WW1. The Social Democratic Party and other left groups and movements were against it and demonstrated in July 1914 - in Germany they could have political parties (although there was covert repression going on).
Not under the Austrian regime - that was an absolute monarchy.
The German Conservatives saw their world upside down in 1918, the war lost, a peace treaty that was a revenge (and unjust), and a massive economic burden. Economic stress, people lost their savings - never mind the humiliation of not having an army (when the emperor had militarized the nation and it had been a source of pride - plus the very real event of being invaded and they could do nothing about it.
The French governmentwould not have dared it (they would have had to explain the dead French soldiers to their population)- even a smaller German army nearby the border would have deterred the chest thumping exercise. It would have been for the better - granting longer payment terms (the British were more reasonable but the French prevailed with their hard line, likely to make brownie points at home). It would have been wise to not fuel the anger and nationalism in the Germans. (Disturbingly the Germans show the same attitude towards the Greek and their debt payment plan - and also for petty reasons, that have nothing to do with economics or insightful foreign policy).
The monarchy was torn down by the winners of the war (to weaken Germany). They got a Republic and a democracy - slapped on them - not to help the population, but to undo monarchy which could provide strong (jingoistic) leadership.
So women and the unwashed masses got more of a say. The conservatives did not understand the world anymore - they created the myth that the Left was the reason why they lost the war and were forced to accep the really bad treaty of Versailles - and Jews had something to do with it too. (There may be some truth to it, that Big Finance in London and Jewish fat cats had a major interest in getting the U.S. to join the war - well they were likely storming against open doors anyway).
The German parliament had many parties, the scene was fractured from the beginning on. The Conservatives were hellbent on not cooperating with the Left - it annoyed the heck out of them that they were a stronger force in society now. Under the monarch people usually "knew their place". The elites had failed the country by letting Germany be dragged into the war (had the German emperor not supported Austria they likely would not have gone forward knewing full well that Russia would support Serbia. And had ALL parties refused to sign on the war budget and the bonds (the Social Democrats did not dare to refuse their agreement once the war was started) - it would have been a major embarassement for the monarch.
The monarchy and the old order was dismantled after 1918, the unwashed masses did not yield to the alleged higher wisdom of the upper class anymore. The conservatives, rich people and industrial leaders found that highly irritating, even alarming. Especially the rich industrial bosses were scared of the power of the working class. Which the emperor had helped to contain.
Regular blue collars were VERY policitally interested and active (the men, women less). New ideas how to run society and the economy were circulated. The conservatives could not prevent it - but they did their best that "left" policies were not implemented. The policies might have worked to the advantage of the masses and would have given the left credibility.
All that obstruction and class war was going on while all of Europe was in a recession, so it would have been difficult enough even when the major political forces had cooperated better. The Left did not give in either - of course not, they had experienced the hostility under the emperor (legally they were not forbidden, but there are ways law enforcement and local powers can tolerate and encourage harassment).
5
-
part 3 of 9 Germany tried to print their way out of the reparations. I think that was one reason for the invasion of the troops (in an area that was under French adminstrative control anyway). Germany was forced to stop printing money, pay the reparations in gold (which they had to buy, no gold mines in Germany, so they needed a stable currency for that). They used more austerity, international finance was satisfied. The currency was stabilized - but for the price of mass unemployment and misery.
Austerity and not the hyperinflation was the worst thing to happen
The money printing caused high inflation and the value of the currency in international trade dropped, imports became very expensive, but then the countries and economies were not as interconnected, technology was less sophisticated. Germany was a large country, Austria (the German speaking remainder of the broken up empire) was in the same situation - they had coal, steel, water (electricity), wood, enough farmland to modestly feed the population. And a skilled workforce.
So with an alternative currency ** valid only within Germany they could have navigated the currency drop. And when not overdoing it with the money printing that could have been a solution for their problems. But of course the fat cats everywhere and international finance would not tolerate that "capital" (in that case "money/currency" is used to help the little people.
The hyperinflation killed of course the savings of the little people. The very rich got a warning ahead no doubt, had their assets also in real estate, in companies and the money denominated assets / cash abroad. So they could protect themselves from inflation.
For working class people it was inconvenient and unsettling - in the end they got their wages TWICE a day and the wife picked up the money in the noon break to go shopping immediately (Dr. Richard Wolff has German heritage, he remembers such stories). - But they still had work.
Having real estate or goods or machines and equipment to produce goods protected you from the effects of inflation. If you had no savings to begin with, inflation could not eat it. Goods, land were the real deal when money lost its value. So people mostly kept their productive jobs - although it added to the hustle and everyone felt insecure.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
part 6 of 9 Jews were doing economically well in Central and Western Europe after the enlightenment and during the Industrial Revolution- better than the average. So there you have it - of course they were the target of envy. A system where only a few on the top and a limited middle class is doing well financially cannot tolerate envy of course - the poor cannot start hating to the top for being rich.
The narrative that being richer is the will of god or their own good efforts (and not exploitation and injustice as was invariably the case) was crucial to maintain the status quo and the privileges of the few.
The narrative of "it's gods will was essential as long as the Church dominated the mindset of people. Then it was the myth of "meritocracy" or "things are just like that" that was equally essential in Capitalism which produces massive inequality - to make those at the bottom accept their fate w/o rebellion.
But there was one group that could be hated for doing well or even being rich, when most other citizens were struggling: Jews. If they had money it was all ill gotten - unlike the wealth of everybody else.
The industrial revolution produced a lot of loser (who had done better in the past, that is more dangerous for the elites than people who had never known better days, they may resign themselves to their lot).
In the industrial revolution skills and professions in which Jews had specialized for historic reasons (often pressured into it) became success promoters: education, international networking, trade, finance, being into white collar professions. Being used to speak more than one language (Jiddish for instance and then German or Czech).
They were always (even in medieval times) well aware of the value of good education. If you have it in your bones that you might be driven out of the country in your lifetime (as happened to your grandparents and happens to Jews in other countries right now - it is wise to value education and to set up international networks and diversify property if you have assets.
In medieval times many professions were not open to them, but the males were (often) taught to read in their religious instructions which was something at that time. They also had settled in many different countries due to prosecution - so they did have an international network of of those who shared their faith and culture. Which helped with trade of course.
They were pressured into money lending (then forbidden by the Catholic Church for Christians), finance and "white" collar professions and international networking and trade - and a few centuries later that became necessary/useful for the more modern, more international, "capital"-based economies.
So they were ahead of the curve, many came to wealth especially if they were not hindered to do their thing (as was often the case in Eastern Europe, Russia also has a history of progroms, a lot of them emigrated to the U.S.).
3
-
@SS-kz7td The war protests included veterans ! - and the protests protected them (and also POWs) - it was meant to save other young men from becoming victims like they had been abused by the powerful. The Pentagon Papers proved that the governments had KNOWN for the longest time (and more than one admin) that the war could not be won.
They found it CONVENIENT to let young U.S. soldiers die nontheless - because those elected bastards did not have the guts to admit a failure and get the hell out of Vietnam (peace negotiations would have meant release of the POWs as well). Nixon did not START the war, he could have exited without losing face.
And those who tought they could make cheap points (weak president, losing the war, peace not honorable). Nixon or LBJ could have kicked their ass and ask them to go die in the jungle. It is not like they shied away from controversy. They were quite good in ass kicking - if they could be bothered.
But maybe, maybe losing an election or having to "endure" some verbal insults was worse than letting other people (U.S. and foreigners) die by the ten of thousands.
No crime and sacrifice is too large - if THEY have not to suffer any consequences.
True to form they avoided to draft college students and sons from AFFLUENT families (that would have been a backlash from their families). So they had McNamara's fools / morons. 100,000 low IQ persons (mentally disabled) who did not pass the tests of course. They were drafted and they lowered the standards to accept them anyway (eager to NOT have to deal with the sons of families that were affluent and DID have money, power and influence on public opinion).
I saw a video - the speaker had written a book: one guy he met could not read, could not write. They had to make his bunk bed, he could not do it, and tied his laces until one soldier took the time to teach him that skill. Mc Namara's folly: the use of low IQ soldiers in Vietnam
Another example: One part of the test was to simulate the throwing of a grenade (in a arch curve). They had camps where they prepared underperformers to pass the test. The sergeants showed it time and again: they did not grasp the concept of an arch curve.
These mentally disabled persons were much more likely to be killed in combat - and they were more dangerous for their fellow soldiers than they were for the Vietcong.
Congressmen and Senators were too cowardly to read the Pentagon Papers on the floor - even though they had immunity. Kudos to Senator Mike Gravel from Alaska - the rare exception to the rule.
These policiticans had doctors write deferrals for their sons- one was for having braces Or Trump had bone spurs (he just cannot remember on which foot. Must be like the many languages his wife allegedly speaks).
Those elected cowards were totally O.K. to have other people die, would not even have the courage to support Ellsberg the whistleblower who risked everything. They did not have the courage to step before their constituency: "This is wrong, not on my watch."
Never mind that it would have helped them get elected. But these careerists and opportunists just could not muster the moral strength to do the right thing when it is - a little - inconvenient or slightly risky.
Gravel stayed with the records and his team in another home (his home was under FBI siege) and for short time in his Senate office. For that he ordered the help of veterans. A bunch of vets in wheelchairs, in uniforms with medals protected his office - he was afraid it would be raided and the text be taken from him. He only had the original. If Nixon sent in the FBI to get the original (was Hoover still the FBI boss then ?) they would first have to take out the disabled vets. That would have been a PR desaster. (another one)
Daniel Ellsberg had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the newspapers, they reported ABOUT it - Nixon tried to stop that, the Supreme Court thought otherwise. But the newspapers could not print ALL the text of course. Sen. Gravel wanted the Pentagon Papers to become part of the Congressional record = public record.
Was undermined with some procedural shenanigans when collegues Democrats were too cowardly to support him and Republicans couteracted his efforts when they realized he might have the papers and do a filibuster.
But they got around that. Called in a spontaneous budget meeting of some comittee (the invitation shoved under the doors of offices, no representatives present of course, it was late in the evening).
One "collaborator" asked for the funding of some streets. The answere was that they would like to provide the funds BUT there was this unnecessary costly war that prevented that. Then they read some passages and included all the files into public record.
That meant a publisher could dare to publish them - they could not be sued into bankrupcy. publishing proved to be very difficult anyway (no commercial house dared to touch it), but a (religious) non-profit pulled that off as well a few years later.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Everybody 1967 Riverside Church speech of Dr. King.- the reasons why he was against the Vietnam war. One: the white people liked it when he preached non-violent resistance. Well, how is he going to sell that to the young black men when they (and others) were sent to Vietnam to be violent (on the state's orders this time). They drafted young black men who then came back and were not treated as equals. The war costs insane money - while there is no money to be found to lift the poor (black, white, ...) out of poverty.
Even friends advised him not to speak out against the war, it cost him sympathies (even in the black communty). However, the FBI and the political ruling class realized how dangerous he was. They took away his secret service or FBI protection, 6 months later he was shot.
What made MLK ALSO dangerous: he was about to start a new project: The War On Poverty (unifying all races, not only black people).
The greatest president the U.S. never had. He was down in the polls - but the citizens at some point would have realized that the man had been ahead of the curve and did not shy away from going the difficult path if he thought that was the right thing to do.
The liberal elites and intellectuals (establishment mouthpieces) btw whitewashed the war even when it had been ended (and they were pretty good at not being drafted, using the loopholes like marriage or going to college while it was going on).
It was a "blunder" a strategic mistake. But made with "good intentions" (Noam Chomsky)
Sounds like the blue print for Iraq, Libya, Syria or Yugoslavia
2
-
The "enemy of ideology" were the various U.S. governments. (And some continued the war, when they KNEW it was pointless - just for policital conveniance and polling. Never mind the killed U.S. soldiers or the victims in Vietnam).The people of Vietnam were not that ideological and not into communism either. The U.S. propped up an utterly corrupt undemocratic regime.
Had they given them a little economic help, some help with the fledgeling democratic efforts - they would have ended up with a populist center right or center left government and the U.S. would have bought goodwill and stability for centuries in the region.
But that is not ideological, did not fit in with the Cold War hysteria. The prosperity of peace tends to spread out to citizens and many companies that serve civilians. The profits of war go to a few usually large companies. That is why war has the much better PR.
These developing nations had leaders and "elites" that colluded with the U.S. to extract the wealth of the country. Leaders that were not sell outs were killed, regime changed or the U.S. attacked them. With an Orwellian PR twist: calling it "defending" the country, or "serving" the country. Or stopping the danger of communism.
The U.S. knew Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, NZ were not going to adopt "communism". Latin American nations could have been won with a Marshall Plan and they would have ended up with center left governments (like many European countries). The U.S. had NO enemies on the continent is protected by two oceans, is a large country with a lot of natural resources incl. OIL and has the atomic bomb.
If the Soviets and China would have been foolish enough to over extend in Asia, the U.S. could have that counteracted - easily and for cheap with economic populism (FDR style or like the Social Democrats did in Europe).
But the U.S. elites had to grudgingly put up with those policies that were good for the masses in the U.S. and in Western Europe. They hated it even at home. They had no intention of letting those beneficial economic models spread. Which would have renedered the Soviet or Chinese model completely unattractive.
The U.S. oligarchs could always use the U.S. military as their mercenaries to ram through their financial interests. See Gen. Smedley Butler: War is a racket. (The pdf is online, it is not long). Butler is taught at the military academies, he was one of the most decorated marines ever - but that insight is not discussed.
Or that the U.S. government brutally crushed the march of veterans and their families on Washington in 1932 (with the help of the military, incl. MacArthur and other later WW2 top brass - that was before FDR came into power).
Butler spoke up against that crackdown as well (they used teargas, protesters were killed). Which is why the Industrial leaders that were pissed off about FDR thought he could help them pull off a fascist power grab in 1934. Smedley Butler was popular among veterans and the army. That did not work out for the rich plotters - he was a patriot, feigned mild interest had a few meetings with middle men, then he informed the White House. I assume they had not enough for a trial and the rich Democrats may have defended their buddies on the other side. Either way it was swept under the rug in the 1930s. But the fierce hatred of the left did not go away - the upper class just had to be discreet for some time.
Vietnam could not have been a threat to the U.S. even if they wanted to. The U.S. helped the French to suppress their colony. When the French did not succeed and there was opposition (in France they DO have a left, the communists were fighting the Nazis fiercly) - the U.S. for some weird reason ("domino" theory which was more idelogical b.s) continued the fight when they had no stake in it. The meddling with the affairs of a poor French colony in Asia which fought bravely for their independence started soon after WW2 and went on for 20 years.
The Cold War was started to feed the Military Industrial Complex and to stick it to the "left" in the U.S. First they could take out the communists (declaring them sort of allies with the Soviet Union - when the U.S. had been a war ally of the S.U. and there were pictures of Uncle Sam and Uncle Joe (Joseph Stalin) in the post office - they were marching arm in arm.
Then they went after the Social Democrats and the war against unions was a long term project. even after the witch hunt in the McCarthy era was over the media had fallen in line, the dissenters had been weeded out. So the people that were left in film and media did not dare to even discuss left (even center-left) economic policies that diverged from the "allowed" narrative. Due to high employment the U.S. workers had to be treated well, but the undermining of unions was under way. And it was important that the masses who had the vote and shown their power in the 1930s were kept indoctrinated and IGNORANT.
Any discussion of the economic system or what made it work in the Golden Era (high taxes for the rich and profitable companies, good wages) was abandoned.
So the masses were only indoctrinated with uncritical adoration of "capitalism". Capitalism was equated with freedom and democracy and free market (no on all acounts, not necessarily). Though stopping clichés were and are thrown around - but ask 3 people what capitalism is and you will get 5 wrong answers at the minimum.
Since voters / consumers / workers / soldiers did not understand WHY the economy worked well after WW2 until the 1970s - the elites could use the first major crisis (3 oil crises, price peaks in the 70s 1973/74, around 1976 and again 1979) to undo the New Deal. People are STILL unaware how the economy worked then and now - only the internet opened the space for discusstion. (MMT, Debt and Interest Free money, Dr. Richard Werner, Ann Pettifor, Stephanie Kelton, Mark Blyth, Steve Keen, Richard Wolff - just to get you started in case you are interested).
Jimmy Carter let Volcker rise interest rates to 20 % which caused a major recession. Volcker saw the world from the point of view of Big Finance. Inflation was higher (oil price costs not an overheating economy drove up inflation). The dollar lost value (Vietnam war debt!) capital left the country / USD - so they "were forced" to raise the interest rates to a level where they damaged the economy.
With interest rates a central bank can finetune the economy (higher if the economy is under full steam to bring things back to solid ground, low rates to counteract a slump). What were they thinking ? 20 % on loans, of course no companies invested. Aspiring home owners postponed purchasing. Which also created problems for people who wanted to SELL their house.
I do not think Carter was a shill for Big Finance (the last president who was not in it for financial gains !) - he simply did not have the economic understanding, most people didn't. So he was at the mercy of the advisors in unsual circumstances (the 1970s were disruptive and unusual in many ways economically).
The high interest rates helped the rich and the investor class - so there was no consistent, nuanced knowledgeable debate on TV. The worries with the high interests rates were discussed - but as fragments and in an anectodal manner, not in a way that the viewers could connect the dots and see the big pictures..
So people were annoyed or worried because the interest rates were high - what else is new.
The fleeing capital was not "needed" so there was no good reason to court them with high interest while causing a recession.
A country (as powerful as the U.S.) can give low(er) interest rates for loans for the productive part of the economy - even if interest rates in general are higher.
The high interest rate protected the banks (they could keep the fortunes on the accounts) and the capital gains of people with fortunes. If you make a living from selling your ability to work - as opposed to having the income from interest, dividends, ... - good interest rates for the savings will not rescue you. The mortgage loan is important or that the economy is doing well so that you can keep the job or easily get a new one.
The high interest at the end of the 1970s severely damaged the economy - which was gladly accepted by Volcker because it helped people that had parked fortunes on their accounts and the banks who serviced those people. Money, bonds
Investments in shares or companies or houses are not negatively affected by inflation.
The state CAN create money with help of the central banks (they did so to the tune of trillions in form of Quantitative Easing - but that was for the banks so it was O.K. Media did not report negatively, it was mentioned but NOT EXPLAINED. Had there been a proposal for QE for The People to bail out the foreclosed homeowners, saving the savers not the banks, let the workers buy up a part of Big Auto - can you imagine the shitstorm on the media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1