HRC has been speaking of "inclusive prosperity" What is it?

[cali]

and yes, Larry Summers is the major force behind it.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2015/01/15/104266/report-of-the-commission-on-inclusive-prosperity/
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7557803/inclusive-prosperity-hillarynomics

[mmonk]

1. A way to appear progressive in economics without ditching the investment bankers.

[cali]

2. I'm reading the report now. My initial response

is that we don't need inclusive economic policy for the wealthy in this country- they're doing better than fine.

[mmonk]

3. Yes. In fact, more than fine or the only ones doing fine as the middle class disintegrates.

[bvar22]

28. To me, it sounds like a euphemism..

...for More Trickle Down.

[Art_from_Ark]

36. More like

Trickle On

[hootinholler]

4. I think it's like the Ownership Society except

All Democratic and stuffs.

[Electric Monk]

5. Sounds like a minor variation on the classic trickle down theme

"A rising tide floats all yachts boats"

[mmonk]

7. Precisely why I'm done with the Third Way forever.

The tipping point is here for both the US and me.

[woo me with science]

6. Wow, that's some Orwellian shit there.

In previous eras, political institutions have responded to economic transformations to ensure prosperity is shared: the New Deal in the United States and the European social welfare state; the “third-way” politics of putting people first of Clinton and Blair by investing in people and reforming institutions.

War is Peace!

[cali]

9. yeah. and it's not easy going.

here's what HRC will be pushing: Paid parental leave, raising the minimum wage and tax credits.

It's the third way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. "Trickle down" in neo-liberalese.

[cali]

11. with minor tweaks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I was particularly taken by this paragraph.

Our report is about embracing the new economic opportunities of the 21st century by finding ways to ensure they serve the vast majority of society. In previous eras, political institutions have responded to economic transformations to ensure prosperity is shared: the New Deal in the United States and the European social welfare state; the “third-way” politics of putting people first of Clinton and Blair by investing in people and reforming institutions. Just as it took the New Deal and the European social welfare state to make the Industrial Revolution work for the many and not the few during the 20th century, we need new social and political institutions to make 21st century capitalism work for the many and not the few.

Another version of "You'll get pie in the sky when you die."

[cali]

15. there are some nice sounding fig leaves. That will be enough for this to be labeled

Progressive.

It's not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Yep. Jam packed with platitudes. "A chicken in every pot" comes to mind.

I view these kind of treatises the same way I view commercials for hair growth products.

Pity the naked fig trees.

[Marr]

16. Yep.

Wealth distribution is a zero-sum game. We can't all be wealthy. We could all be well off and secure-- but then we couldn't have a handful of people who have their own private yacht fleets and islands and jets.

[JaneyVee]

10. Really, people have a problem with this?

"More infrastructure spending (with new measures to improve project management on federal infrastructure deals), more preschool, closing corporate tax and inheritance tax loopholes, curbing the deductibility of executive pay, a tax cut for middle class workers, more FHA subsidies for riskier loans, and a reiteration of the merits of comprehensive immigration reform.

But the report is especially striking for its endorsement of labor market regulations not normally associated with the Summers wing of Democratic thinking.

[cali]

14. both dems and repubs give lip service to closing corporate tax loopholes and

they have for quite some time. It's not meaningful. More infrastructure spending is a a good thing- but the devils are in the details and I'm looking for those now.

Look, the bottom line is that you have to start talking about restoring higher taxes on the wealthiest in our society- and that includes raising taxes on capital gains income, taxing derivatives, and raising the SS cap- if you want to talk about actually doing something to make the economy more equitable. And that's just for starters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I saw Larry Summers this morning with Fareed Zakaria

He said

-we needed to raise the minimum wage
-invest in our infrastructure
-and restore bargaining power to unions to put upward pressure on wages.

But when all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

[cali]

19. 10.10 an hour is what CAP advocates over a 3 year period

10.10 an hour by 2018 is pretty weak- and that's if we introduced that today. In any case, it's important that a rise in the minimum keep pace with rising costs.

Investing in our infrastructure is a great idea and vital. But it has to be a real and substantial investment. You know what they say about the devil and details.

restoring bargaining power to Unions is undermined by FTAs. How do you do it?

[Marr]

13. Sounds like a very focus group tested term from the DLC.

They'll never, ever say that the rich simply have too much of the wealth and that it must be taken away from them in some manner. That's a non-starter, and goes past the line of populist rhetoric the Wall Street crowd will tolerate.

This is a 'rising tide lifts all boats' sort of sentiment, and is the same angle neoliberals have used to promote the international trade deals that have rotted this country's manufacturing economy away. It sounds nice, but it really just means 'if my microscopic social class prospers, it will be good for all of you filthy plebes'.

Still, you almost have to admire it as a piece of advertising. "Inclusive" sounds very liberal, and it can be interpreted to mean just about anything the listener wants it to mean; maybe it refers to gender issues, maybe it means racial issues, or regional issues... whatever you like. After all, this is rapidly becoming a nation of poor people, and they'll all like the sound of being 'included'.

[HereSince1628]

23. Yes, much like the post-industrial society stuff from the 90's

The problem with this allusion is that we aren't a society of big and little boats that float on the surface of an ocean

We are more like a society of investors composed of hot air balloons where money is the hot air...

Those with the money rise, the more money the faster the rise, without sufficient money, many balloons aren't even getting inflated.
With the emphasis on expensive higher education, many balloons have added sandbags that can't be thrown off.


And something that should be evident in the later allusion...hot air, like money, doesn't trickle down.

[Marr]

24. That is a much more accurate metaphor. /nt

[pa28]

20. Larry Summers and his banker colleagues like to scold advocates of taxing the rich.

For the last year or two you might have noticed them condemning people like Elizabeth Warren. Instead of populist rhetoric they suggest Democrats use the term "lifting all boats" or "lifting up everybody" instead of daring to say the inequality problem needs to be solved by taxing the wealthy or capital in general. This language has been adopted by the Obama administration as well.

"Inclusive prosperity" just seems like a focus group tested way of saying the same thing. It's about protecting the wealthy.

[Doctor_J]

21. Elsewhere on DU it has been agreed that all opposition to HRC is because she's female

so this must be a good thing that you just don't like because to would prefer a white male like Elizabeth Warren

[Marr]

25. lol!

[sabrina 1]

32. Lol!

[Doctor_J]

22. It's "Compassionate Conservatism" for your money

[orpupilofnature57]

26. If something has to be explained it's Esoteric, and meant

only for a few .

[whatchamacallit]

27. It's a report on which to base talking points

Wind for the campaign sails...

[Binkie The Clown]

29. Everybody can be rich, and nobody has to work.

I like it! But who will serve me my caviar if nobody has to work? Surely we can keep, oh, say 99% of the people working as peons to serve the rest of us. That's inclusive enough for me.

[leveymg]

30. A tax cut for the stockbrokers, lawyers, and other most valued servants to the oligarchs.

Helping the 2% -- those who have to work for a living, very comfortably -- up by their bootstraps.

[cali]

31. I don't think HRC will cut taxes for the wealthy, but she won't

raise them at all.

[Adrahil]

33. You know she cant raise OR lower them, right?

Congress has to do that. I bet she WOULD raise taxes on the rich, if she thought she could get something like that through Congress.

But politics is the art of the possible. It seems pretty foolish to me to talk about doing stuff you have no hope of actually accomplishing.

[cali]

34. You know she can advocate for that, right?

And no, it wouldn't be foolish to do so, but it would take political courage, something that she has a marked paucity of.

She won't take a stand on the TPP or Keystone. She has a long history of speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

Raising taxes on capitol gains, on income, on derivatives isn't a radical or hopeless prospect- unless no one fights for it.

[Adrahil]

35. Sure she can, but to what end?

She can promise all kinds of bullshit that she can't do. That doesn't help anyone. As it is, we have people here blaming Obama for not delivering on all his promises. Promises are nice, i guess, but i really want our candidate to formulate a strategy that actually moves us in the right direction. I'll take successful half measures over a failed aspirational measures any day.

It's why I support the ACA. It's not everything I want, but it advances the cause, and more importantly, it's actually helping people.

So in other words, instead of muddling her message with stuff she'd like to see, but has no hope of actually getting passed, I want her to focus of an agenda she has a realistic chance of getting passed. If she is successful, she can then push further.

[cali]

37. you mean like her horseshit proposal for a constitutional amendment

to reverse the CU SCOTUS decisison? You realize she spoke out on that, right? And you do know that's far, far more unlikely and harder to do than raising taxes on the wealthy?

How the fuck is that anything that's even remotely realistic.

And yeah, I expect you to ignore this.

[bvar22]

39. In her 2008 campaign,

Hillary refused to consider Raising-the-Cap on Social Security which would be Taxing the Rich.

[Orsino]

38. Trickle-down, I would imagine.

It would be great if trickle-down worked, because our elites are utterly deboted.

I would hope that Clinton is calling for a strengthened social safety net to compensate. That would be something.

[hifiguy]

40. If Summers, who should be hanged for financial crimes against humanity, is behind it,

it means that the rich will be including the rest of us out. In perpetuity.

Sounds like a rehash of Chimpy's "ownership society" where the people were going to wind up being owned by the tenth-percenters.