The Chinese are people like any other.

 

BY Maxime VIVAS

 

Zheng Ruolin (Ruolin is the first name) is publishing a delightful and mischievous book with Denoël: "The Chinese are people like any other".

The author has lived in France for about twenty years. His father, who recently passed away, was a famous Chinese intellectual in his country and a translator of French authors (including Balzac). He had suffered the harshness of the terrible period of the Cultural Revolution during Mao's time.

Here is what the back cover of Zheng Ruolin's book says:

"China is developing at a dizzying speed. It interests, arouses admiration or frightens, but always intrigues. What does the incredible transformation of the former Middle Kingdom mean for its 1,300 million inhabitants? In Beijing or Shanghai as in the countryside, what are their joys, their frustrations or their hopes? For once, it is not a Westerner who tells us what the Chinese think, fear, desire, consume... in short, how the Chinese live, work and have fun. Without mincing words and not without humor, far from clichés, Zheng Ruolin addresses all aspects of daily life and the concerns of the Chinese. Thus we will know what the country's 500 million Internet users are saying and telling each other, what the new "middle class" dreams of, how lovers in Canton or elsewhere behave, what it means to own a home or a car... An unusual portrait of the inhabitants of the future world's leading economic power, which extends a story of the Cultural Revolution, as it was seen, with his child's eyes, by the author."

I am lucky to know Zheng Ruolin well, the most Parisian of Chinese journalists, probably the most French. We always find the opportunity to have lunch together when I "go up" to Paris.

He is the correspondent in France for several Chinese newspapers, including the Shanghai daily Wen Hui Bao and the Hong Kong daily Wen Wei Po. He also writes for the Beijing daily, Global Times. When I published my book “The Hidden Face of Reporters Without Borders” in 2008, Zheng Ruolin gave these newspapers a wide range of information. I had the thrill of suddenly becoming better known in Beijing than in Paris, in Shanghai than in Toulouse (where I live), in Hong Kong than in my home village.

It is probably thanks to this Asian glory that the Chinese, when they wanted to show Tibet to top reporters from Le Figaro and Le Monde, thought that I would also make a useful observer. That is why I was in Tibet in 2010; I published my book “The Dalai Lama, Not So Zen” in France (Editions Max Milo), then in China, then in the USA. Zheng Ruolin was a valuable intermediary in these operations.

Zheng Ruolin is a warm man, full of humor, who loves France and his country. And it is because he wants Beijing and Paris to know and understand each other better that he wrote "The Chinese are men like the others", a book of love and peace.

A book for a Christmas present, mind you. A book that makes you better and smarter.

I have already mentioned, here and there, surprising information about China that the majority of our fellow citizens see through the distorting prism of the media, that is to say as a monolithic and mysterious empire (therefore disturbing), populated by more than a billion yellow ants, in overalls, busy day and night and enjoying bowls of rice while observing us from behind the slits of their eyes which are nothing other than horizontal loopholes of castles or slats of shutters surreptitiously pushed aside by an ambushed observer.

Le Grand Soir recently asked its readers a few questions inspired by Zheng Ruolin's book): "Did you know that in China we speak Chinese? Yes, except when we speak one of the 200 languages ​​other than Mandarin.

Did you know that in the Xinjiang region, populated by Uighurs (and not by yoghurts as Bernard Kouchner, the socialist-Sarkozy minister, once said), when the assembly of elected officials meets, 5 interpreters are needed for them to understand each other? "

It is probably high time that the French, in the mutual interest of our two countries, tear themselves away from a geopolitical illiteracy [GUS BOLD] that induces economic blindness and a freezing of human relations.

Now, it is to help us that Zheng Ruolin wrote this serious, amusing, simple and scholarly book. We should thank him for that, as we would for a guest who, while congratulating you on your table, pleasantly instructs you about a distant and unknown country where men and women who resemble us live. "Ah! fool who thinks that I am not you! " exclaimed Victor Hugo, the same one who so beautifully castigated the sacking of the Summer Palace in Beijing by English and French mercenaries (see www.legrandsoir.info/Victor-Hugo-contre-le-paiement-des.html).

Do not be afraid, Zheng Ruolin does not at any time seek to sell you the Chinese economic, political, administrative, social, judicial, union, or cultural system. He talks to you about China and France as they are for him, these two countries called upon to evolve, but jealous of some of their specificities. His original perspective enlightens us and makes us better understand China...and France. He persuades us of the need to talk to each other more. Without fear and without arrogance, with mutual respect, as befits two great powers that are not enemies.

Maxime Vivas

 

BUT THE JEWISH LOBBY HATES ZHENG RUOLIN.....

In a 2022 essay, the Beijing-based journalist and public intellectual Zheng Ruolin—who made his bones working for Chinese state-run media in Paris in the 1990s—outlined an anti-Semitic theory of the global political order. Using such evasions as “many people even directly associate Jewishness with transnational financial capital,” rather than articulate his anti-Jewish ideas straightforwardly, Zheng draws on anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-globalization, and Marxist themes to portray a world where evil forces maliciously paint Russia and China as enemies of the West to distract from the latter’s supposed decay. Tuvia Gering writes:

 

The article was published on June 10, 2022 by the popular nationalist platform Guancha, which is funded by the billionaire Eric Li and occasionally publishes egregiously anti-Semitic or simply racist articles by firebrand Chinese pundits in order to generate clicks. . . . According to Zheng Ruolin, Xi Jinping’s China has accepted the challenge of leading mankind toward a “community of shared future.” This has made it the number-one adversary of transnational financial capital, which is driven by Jews on their mission to establish a world government over which they will rule.

Gering provides a complete translation of the article, which contains such passages as the following:

When it comes to dealing with China, however, Western transnational financial capital has a strategy of collaborating with industrial capital. In a speech at the 2019 Davos Economic Forum, the American Jewish financial tycoon George Soros went so far as to call the competition between China and the West “a battle for the future of the world.”

China’s community of shared future for mankind represents yet another direct challenge to the “world government.” Will capital establish a “world government” it dominates, or will China be able to lead mankind toward a community of shared future? This is a challenge with such historic ramifications that China has emerged as transnational finance capital’s number-one adversary.

Read more at Discourse Power

More about: Anti-Semitism, China

 

ZHENG RUOLIN LOOKS MORE LIKE A GOOD GUY AFTER THIS JEWISH FRIGHTFUL ESSAY...

READ FROM TOP.

 

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”       Mao Zedong

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

 

AS THE CHINESE ARE BUSY BUILDING THEIR MIDDLE CLASS, AMERICA HAS BEEN WORKING HARD TO DESTROY THEIR OWN...

 

ROBERT REICH PREDICTED THE DEATH OF THE US MIDDLE CLASS 30 YEARS AGO. WE ASKED HIM HOW TO SAVE IT.

 

The former US Labor Secretary explains how wealthy elites and conflict merchants have bought off our democracy, profited from dividing us, and smothered popular progressive policies like universal healthcare. BY TAYA GRAHAM  AND  STEPHEN JANIS.  DECEMBER 6, 2024

•  

 

 

30 years ago, in 1994, then-US Labor Secretary Robert Reich issued a prescient warning to all Americans: “We are on the way to becoming a two-tiered society.” Reich also predicted that, as wealth inequality continued to explode in the US, working people would be consumed by righteous populist rage that could be easily manipulated; the rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement decades later proved Reich to be devastatingly right. In this special livestreamed edition of Inequality Watch, Taya Graham and Stephen Janis continue their deep dive into the history and political repercussions of our historic wealth imbalance by talking to Robert Reich himself. In this wide-ranging discussion, the former Labor Secretary explains how wealthy oligarchs have bought off our democracy, profited from dividing us, and smothered serious efforts to mitigate the climate crisis as well as popular progressive policies like universal healthcare and affordable housing.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino
Written by: Stephen Janis

TRANSCRIPT

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello. My name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Inequality Watch on The Real News Network. Now, as you may or may not know myself and my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, normally host the police accountability report. But we also focus our investigative reporting skills on another topic we think is just as important, the explosion of economic inequality in the US.

It’s an issue that affects almost everything we do. It’s why our healthcare system pushes so many into bankruptcy. It’s why working people have been working longer and harder. Yet, the real wages have barely risen over the past 40 years. And it’s why discussions about problems like climate change are submerged, no pun intended, in a tsunami of misinformation. It is in a sense the issue that none of us can afford to ignore.

On our last Inequality Watch, we spoke with legendary economist, Richard Wolff. And we discussed one of the most obvious symptoms of this unequal system, billionaires. We examined not just the impact of billionaires on our election, but how wealth influences and often constrains our political debate and how we approach complex social problems.

I mean, think about the last election and the debates that defined it. Did we hear a word about how our country bankrupts people who get sick? Did we hear anything about living wages or a real and thoughtful debate about how to create affordable housing or fight climate change or really save social security? Of course not.

Instead, billionaires who pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns and super PACs and think tanks have corralled common sense by conjuring false conflicts that prompted us to fight amongst ourselves and they get richer. And the mainstream and social media have gleefully and gainfully fueled our culture wars.

But there is a good reason for this, because the system that sustains extreme wealth is not only flawed, but absolutely constructed in a way that is self-sustaining. And it does so in part by blinding our minds to the truth. It’s like inequality is making us sick. And the political movement that could save us is prevented from revealing a cure.

But today, we’re going to find it and take a healthy dose of economic justice medicine to allow us to overcome the disease that ails all of us. And I will also be in the live chat to answer questions for you when I can. And to do so, we are so lucky to be joined by one of the foremost thinkers on this subject, Robert Reich. The former Clinton labor secretary, has been at the forefront of debates over the impact of inequality on our society, constantly steering our deranged national discourse towards sense and sanity through facts, insight, and expert analysis.

He is a champion of labor and the rights of workers. But he’s also a soothsayer who predicted the rise of our politics of disillusionment merely three decades ago due to, you guessed it, rising inequality. Let’s just watch a brief clip of him talking about it in 1994, almost 30 years ago through the day. I would love to play every moment of this video. But when I get a chance, I will post a link in the chat for you.

Robert Reich:

If American business continues to pursue short-term profits at the price of insecurity and falling living standards for a large portion of our society, it will sooner or later reap the bitter harvests of popular rage. The American public is basically pro-business. But that support rests upon an implicit bargain. And American business betrays that bargain every time it fires an older worker in order to hire a younger one at a lower cost. Every time it provides gold-plated health insurance to top executives, but it cuts health insurance or denies health insurance to its regular workers.

Every time it labels an employee who had been a full-time employee an independent contractor for the purpose of getting that employee off the payroll and lowering various benefits. Every time it discards its workers, rather than investing in their future capacity to produce and produce more and produce better and produce smarter, particularly when profits are booming. What America must do fundamentally is empower every man and woman to earn their way into the new middle class.

Taya Graham:

Okay. You can see we have the right guest for the topic at hand to say the least. I mean, do we have Nostradamus here or do we have an economist who actually took the time to look at the impact of globalization and computerization and automation and rabid corporate profit-seeking and actually saw the impact it would have on people?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. It’s really interesting because when I watch that clip, I have an epiphany because we had been at the Republican National Convention and we had talked to people and tried to push them on like, “What specific policies?” And there was this real sense of nostalgia and angry nostalgia in the people that we talked to.

And I think now when I’m watching the clip, I get the sense that what they were nostalgic about was a time period when this country actually cared about the middle class and working class. I think they were really … They would be angry about immigration or something, but it seemed to me all focused on this idea, we need to go back. But go back to what? Go back to when there were people who were leading this country who actually cared about how policies affected working-class people.

And I think that’s what this clip foretells, that these devices would come forward and just basically define the future, which is what we saw at the Republican National Convention.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, I think that’s an excellent way to categorize some of the grievance that we saw, as well as it was nostalgia as well. And it was nostalgic as well. That’s a really excellent point.

Stephen Janis:

But a twisted form of nostalgia, too, that doesn’t see the future and really doesn’t see any possibilities. And that’s what Professor was talking about there.

Taya Graham:

But before we go back to Professor Reich, I want to revisit some of the ideas from our last show so we can build on them. Now, this is a method we use on the show to add some context to the facts of how wealth inequality impacts all of us. So, last time, we came up with a way of categorizing billionaires to help us understand this idea. We wanted to discuss the relationship between how extreme wealth is acquired and how that process infiltrates our political discourse, shapes public policy, and influences how we vote.

So, I want to take a minute to review these ideas so that we can explore their mechanics, and I want to examine the operating system of our inequality economics. So, Stephen, we came up with three types of billionaires that we argued had an outsized impact on our political discourse. Can you review them for us quickly and tell us why they’re important?

Stephen Janis:

Well, we came up with carbon billionaires who are billionaires that make money off fossil fuels. We had conflict billionaires who are billionaires that make money off creating social media and a media ecosystem that thrives off of discourse, discord and strife and anger. And then we came up with capture billionaires are the people who extract money through private equity or through investment bank or whatever.

So, we came up with those three to say, “Here is a political economy that emerges from these three billionaires.” And especially today, we’re going to focus on the conflict billionaires because of the way their ecosystem has created this public square that is all about conflict and not about solving problems. So, those are the three just quickly overview of how they work.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So, that was a great summation. And so, for the purpose of our discussion today though, I just want to focus on one genus of billionaires, specifically the conflict variety. That’s because I think they have create, what we would call, a conflict-rich environment. And the reason I make this point is because we need to keep this idea in mind as we unpack this subject with our guests. This means the waters, so to speak, are muddied by this so-called conflict environment.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the problem is one thing we saw talking to voters, like I said, they had very little grasp of policy. And I think that’s because we’re all immersed in a conflict, kind of what you said, like a conflict-defined ecosystem of information that makes it impossible to really discuss complex policy. You’re just basically there to dunk on people. And really a lot of the voters seem really misinformed in many ways about their own self-interest. So, we’re trying to create a way of analyzing that and looking through the lens of conflict economics and, by extension, conflict media.

Taya Graham:

I’d just like to add that this very immersive information complex that we’re confronted with daily uses a very specific conveyor to decide what we see and read. So, what rises to the top of the algorithmic ladder gets there because it generates the most antipathy and the most animosity. I mean, social media companies have literally helped fuel ethnic conflict and civil wars, and that’s where the conflict billionaires pave the way for extreme wealth without accountability. You can’t fight the power, so to speak, if we’re fighting each other.

So, we need to remember that as we try to evolve our thinking about this topic of economics, because that system can simply bury the information, bury the discussion, and bury the analysis that seeks to hold it accountable. And that brings me again to our guest, former labor secretary and labor rights champion, Robert Reich.

Let me give or at least try to give a brief introduction. His latest is The System: Who Rigged It, and How to Fix It. He served as the secretary of labor in the Clinton administration for which Time Magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. And of course, he has a Substack, Robert Reich, a YouTube channel named after him, and he’s the co-founder of Inequality Media, a nonpartisan digital media company whose mission is to inform and engage the public about inequality and the imbalance of power in our society.

And if any of you watching want to learn more about the economics of inequality, please follow Professor Reich and his colleagues at Inequality Media. Professor Reich, welcome to the Inequality Watch, and thank you so much for joining us.

Robert Reich:

Well, thank you, Taya. Thank you for inviting me. And Stephen, it’s very, very good to talk with you as well.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

So, first, if you don’t mind, it would be great if you could give us some sense of the historical perspective on the magnitude of inequality at this moment in our history. And maybe even more importantly, what did you see 30 years ago that told you this extreme inequality was on its way? What did you see that no one else could? Or was it that other people saw it but refused to admit the truth? I mean, how did you know?

Robert Reich:

Well, I don’t want to take credit for knowing what other people did not know. I think that, “Oh, Washington, DC has a tendency to exaggerate things that are politically powerful and self-politically like conflict.” But submerge, as you suggested, Taya, a few minutes ago, submerge some of the real important structural issues that we ought to be talking about.

And as secretary of labor, it seemed to me very important to talk about those structural issues. I took some heat for it, but I think it was worth it. You mentioned before that the conflict industry, particularly with regard to social media, tries to sell various time and goods and services on the basis of conflict, and that’s absolutely right. But there’s something else going on here as well, and that is that the more we are angry with each other, working-class people, middle-class people in America, the less we look up and see where all the wealth and power in our society has actually gone.

It’s gone to the top and it’s gone to the top in a fairly short amount of time. I mean, starts in the late ’70s, early 1980s, the Reagan administration and the deregulation of Wall Street, globalization through trade, the ability of companies to put the squeeze and really corrupt and overwhelm their labor unions. And finally, the ability of companies to monopolize their markets all contributed to this extraordinary rise in inequality, which can only be compared I think to what happened in the late-19th century, early-20th century. It was called then the First Gilded Age, or it was called the Gilded Age really is the First Gilded Age.

Because what we’re seeing right now is comparable, the same degrees of inequality, the same robber barons, that’s what we used to call them in the First Gilded Age. There are robber barons. There are people who are abusing their wealth and using it to essentially corrupt our democracy.

Stephen Janis:

Wow. Professor, so is it okay if we refer to this as a Second Gilded Age from on, that would be helpful. There’s this idea, this notion, that politics are irreparably divided. But how much of that divide is a result of the economic inequality and the forces of inequality you talked about? I mean, is it really a divide or is it really just that this sometimes unexpressed notion of inequality is driving us to loathe each other in some way?

Robert Reich:

Well, I think you have a huge number of people in this country, Stephen, who although they’ve worked harder than ever, they’re playing by the rules. They are not getting ahead. Now, the American dream used to be that if you did play by the rules and you worked hard, you would do better and better economically over your lifetime and your children would do better than you. And that was what happened in the first three or four decades after the Second World War.

We created the largest middle class the world had ever seen, larger than America had ever seen. And people did better and better and better, and their children did better than they did. But that all came apart. It came apart in part because of corruption, because the rules of the game changed, because you had a really fundamental shift in the structure of the economy brought about by a few extremely wealthy people and extremely big corporations.

Now, we can get into the details of what happened. But I think the important point for this discussion is that the Republicans effectively used this anger and frustration and disillusionment to go after cultural elites. The Democrats did not use this anger, frustration, and disillusionment to go after, to me, the real culprits, which were economic elites.

Stephen Janis:

Agreed. Agreed by that.

Taya Graham:

Wow. That’s a powerful analysis.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, it really is interesting how the anger has been misdirected quite efficiently by Republicans. They’ve been very, very effective at that, at scapegoating, as I think you’ve talked about before.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. And the Democrats have, unfortunately, missed the vote there.

Stephen Janis:

No. The Democrats have been the recipients of it, because they seem like institutionalists and elitists at this point. And it just does what the Professor’s talking about. All the anger just rises and makes them incapable of articulating a vision of a fair future for people.

Taya Graham:

And it is ironic that they’re considered the elitists, but at the same time you see them with the great celebrities. But then, of course, the Republican Party, you have a cabinet full of billionaires. So, how’s that not elitist? But I actually wanted to address something and I have this clip I wanted to share with you because there had been criticism of a policy that had occurred under the Clinton administration, which is NAFTA with regard to alienating the working class and costing jobs for blue collar workers. So, I just want to play your critique from your Coffee Klatch podcast and just have us all take a listen to it.

Robert Reich:

I was very proud to be part of the Clinton administration. I was a cabinet member of the Clinton administration. But that was an administration that embraced NAFTA and Chinese accession to the World Trade Organization and deregulated Wall Street, got rid of the basic, basic 1930s acts that would’ve separated and did separate investment from commercial banking.

Said to Wall Street, “Go ahead, do whatever you want.” And put antitrust and monopolization on the backburner and said, “Big companies, you want to merge, go ahead.” And did not actually move toward labor law change and reform.

Taya Graham:

Now, Professor Reich, we can’t go back in time and undo NAFTA. But what can be done going forward? Is there any way we can fix the damage that occurred in a meaningful way or is there just no way to put the genie back in the bottle?

Robert Reich:

Well, we can put the genie back in the bottle. In fact, I think the Trump administration, ironically, is talking about very, very large tariffs on Mexico and on Canada. Now, I’m not suggesting this is a good thing. But it certainly goes back to the years before NAFTA. I think the real issue here is developing a set of policies, and I do not expect the Trump administration filled with billionaires and planning to give them even more of a tax break will do this.

But the real issue is how to equip every American, even those without college degrees, with what they need to do well in this new economy. I don’t think we need to take globalization for granted. I don’t think we need to take for granted that Wall Street is going to become the center of the economy. I think that’s been an extraordinarily bad thing for most workers.

We should not take for granted that big companies are going to be as profitable as they are or as big as they are. They should be broken up. We can change the structure of the economy to make it an economy that works for everybody instead of working for just a handful of people at the top.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean to your point there, which is interesting and my next question is, first of all, I’d like to know what you think about things like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act in terms of addressing those issues, but also explain why the voters we talked to seem so unaware of these policies. They’re massive industrial policies, which I would think would be good for working people, but the people we spoke to just aren’t aware of them.

So, for the first question is, is that a good way to address what you’re talking about having these industrial policies? And secondly, why doesn’t it permeate the political discussion and why are voters unaware of these things that could be beneficial to them?

Robert Reich:

Well, they’re unaware, I think, in large part, because the Biden administration did not know how to tell them about it. I mean, voters when they just see Inflation Reduction Act or they see policies or they see an Infrastructure Act or they see numbers attached to these things and their eyes glaze over. They have no idea what they mean.

I mean, to talk about these things in a practical way, you’ve got to go back to people’s kitchen tables and say, “This is what this means in terms of your pocketbook. It’s going to happen not now, but it’s going to happen six months from now.” Or “This is what the goal is and you can check in along the way and let’s see whether you are doing better and your children are doing better and you’re getting better jobs.” But there was no attempt to do that. No contextualizing, no narrative, no story, just a bunch of policies.

Stephen Janis:

No story. Yeah. I’m sorry. Just to follow up. But do you think in terms of addressing the need for people who don’t have college degrees to have good jobs, are those the policies that you would think would be best to do? I just want to make sure to clarify that. Do you support that industrial policy or do you think that it’s not going to work in the long run?

Robert Reich:

I think that those policies are very important. They’ve already started to work, but they’re just the beginnings. I mean, people need, for example, paid family leave. They need help with caregiving to children and to elderly people in their families who need care. Most people need help with housing. We have a housing crisis across the country. I mean, these are kitchen table issues. But the political classes really not directly dealing with them.

Stephen Janis:

That’s interesting.

Taya Graham:

I just wanted to follow up just to try to understand how a system like this develops in DC. I mean, you’re obviously very pro-worker, very pro-labor person. Can you understand how a concept and a policy like NAFTA happens? I mean, couldn’t they foresee the impact it would have on workers? I mean, did it happen because corporations were picturing greater profits and they were influencing the process? I mean, can you help us understand what happens in the DC bubble, so a policy like this gets pushed forward and the American worker ends up hurt?

Robert Reich:

It happened because big corporations and very wealthy people who stood to gain a lot of money pushed the George H.W. administration to negotiate the North America Free Trade Act. And then it was very hard for Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration to do an about-face. In fact, the same forces that actually got NAFTA to be enacted in the first place were still there under the Clinton administration.

Organized labor, now this is important. Organized labor constituted about a third of the entire private sector workforce in the 1950s and 1960s. But by the time of the Clinton administration organized labor was down to about 10% of the private sector workforce. Today, it’s down to 6% of the private sector workforce. So, in other words, you’ve had a total collapse of organized labor as a political force. It’s just not there.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, we covered the Republican National Convention. I think you wanted to ask him about some of the grievances that we saw.

Stephen Janis:

Well, we asked about that. I do want to ask you something just and delve into the personal with you, because we watched your documentary, Saving Capitalism, which is excellent. And the thing that struck me after going through all your stuff is the consistency in your care for working people, your support of working people, and the idea that government should be effective in some ways, which shouldn’t seem revolutionary, but it kind of is.

But I was just wondering, I was wanting to know your earlier story. How did you come to this philosophy that seemed to guide you through your life? Was it something a book you read at one point or experiences when you were younger? I felt like it left me wanting to know more about you in terms of how you arrived at this worldview that has been consistent.

Robert Reich:

Well, it’s interesting to me that you would ask the question, because this worldview is so basic to me and to everything I experienced, particularly as a young person. The Civil Rights Movement convinced me that government could play a very important part in giving people opportunities and overcoming oppression and bigotry. The anti-war movement, the Anti-Vietnam War movement of which I was a part, convinced me that if people came together and expressed themselves and mobilized and organized, they could change the course of government policy and bring about better consequences.

I was weaned on the notion, my parents and grandparents, that under Franklin D. Roosevelt government really did save the country, that saved the economy, saved the working class, saved the middle class. So, it didn’t strike me as very unusual. What strikes me as unusual is the idea the government is somehow the enemy. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan was president when he said, “Government is the problem.”

Government is not the problem. I mean, the problem really is the corruption of government by big economic interests that have changed the rules to make sure that they do better and better and better, and everybody else is essentially stepped on.

Taya Graham:

You mentioned something in 1994 and that video just … I really want everyone to watch that because it was so prescient. You mentioned something that few people saw, not only the trajectory that would create a two-tiered system, but that people would begin looking for scapegoats. And it seems that your prediction was accurate, especially in light of the heated conversation around immigration where the loss of American jobs and benefits is blamed on immigrants. Let’s just take a listen to a piece of that clip and then I’ll ask you a question so you can respond.

Robert Reich:

Middle-class families have not been able to regain their footing. They push these coping mechanisms about as far as they can go, and they still feel that they are losing the American dream. My friends, we are on the way to becoming a two-tiered society composed of a few winners at a larger group of Americans left behind whose anger and whose disillusionment is easily manipulated.

Once unbottled, mass resentment can poison the very fabric of society, the moral integrity of a society, replacing ambition with envy, replacing tolerance with hate. Today, the targets of that rage are immigrants and welfare mothers and government officials and gays and an ill-defined counterculture. But as the middle class continues to erode, who will be the targets tomorrow?

Taya Graham:

It makes me think of that saying “What’s past is prologue.” I mean, it’s just so prophetic and they seem to predict perfectly, these recent culture wars have been inflamed by social media companies that profit from the outrage. And I do think it can be argued that there are some problems at our border with how immigrants are processed in our country.

But to see that foreign-born people who are producing food or working in fields or working in food processing plants or working in our dairies or harming us, it seems like a rhetoric designed to avoid looking at the real culprits of our economic distress. So, I would like to know what you would say to people who are being inundated with this divisive and arguably inaccurate rhetoric to explain why the scapegoating is occurring and who it really benefits.

Robert Reich:

Well, the scapegoating benefits the people who really are behind the corruption of our American politics, the big corporations, very wealthy and Wall Street. Now, it benefits them because they’re off the hook. They are not seen by anybody as the real culprits, because the Democratic Party is not focusing on them. The Democratic Party doesn’t want to bite the hands that feed them. The Republican Party is basically their handmaidens.

And so, who is it out there who people understand to be the causes of stagnant wages, insecure jobs and lack of healthcare, lack of … well, everything that we’ve talked about that people need. I think it really comes down to a very simple proposition and that is that people understand that there’s a problem. There’s a huge problem that the economy is really not working, but they want to know why.

And if one party is making up excuses, talking about the deep state and immigrants and blaming communists and saying Democrats are socialists and just making up all kinds of scapegoats. And the other party that is the Democrats are not actually talking about the corruption that comes from huge money infecting our politics from big corporations and from wealthy people and from Wall Street.

Then who are you going to believe? Well, you don’t have much choice. You’re only given the Republican story. This is what one of the big tragedies of our time. The Democratic Party has not just turned its back on the working class. The Democratic Party has actually stopped telling the accurate story about why the working class and the middle class are in such trouble today.

Stephen Janis:

Professor, how much do you think that problem is? Because Democrats embraced, and I know this is a fraught word, neoliberalism, because I’ve covered a lot of local governments and state governance and it’s always public-private partnerships. We’re going to solve this with a tax break for a corporation. This will solve everything.

How much of the Democrats succumb to the notion of neoliberalism has made it almost impossible for them to articulate an argument that they really care about the working class so that their policies are focused on the working class? How much is neoliberalism a problem?

Robert Reich:

Well, neoliberalism is at the core of the problem for the Democrats. If by neoliberalism you mean privatization, deregulation, international trade, all of the things that basically the big corporations and the wealthy and Wall Street wants. But the underlying problem has to do with money. Once the Supreme Court began opening the floodgates to big money and politics, and I’m talking about really before the cases that we all know about, I mean it really starts with Buckley versus Valeo in the early-1970s.

Once the Supreme Court begins to open American politics to that corruption, then there’s almost no end to it. Because the corruption changes the rules of the game. And the rules of the game being changed enables the wealthy to become even wealthier, the big corporations to become even bigger, and then they can turn around and use even more of their money to corrupt the process even further. It’s a ratcheting effect that is extraordinarily dangerous.

Taya Graham:

I was thinking about one of the messages that seem to underlie almost all of our political debates, which is the idea that it’s a zero-sum game. In other words, all policies lead to either winners or losers. But you wrote a book that suggests otherwise, called The Common Good. Can you talk about this idea a little and maybe why it seems or maybe just feels almost impossible to really discuss and embrace the common good in the current political environment?

Robert Reich:

I think most Americans, average people, your friends, people in your community understand the notion of the common good. People are generous. I mean, they see somebody who is in trouble on the sidewalk and they respond to those people. They see somebody who is in a car crash and they immediately call the police and they respond.

This is not rocket science. This is not a perversion of the public norms. No. The common good is alive everyday reality. The people who are the first responders, the people who are nurses and nurses’ aides and social workers and teachers, they all understand the common good. The people who don’t understand the common good, unfortunately, are trapped in a system in which big money has corrupted them and big money has corrupted the part of the system that they exist in.

Stephen Janis:

So, that brings up a really interesting point because there’s this internal debate in the Democratic Party about they went to left or they need to go more left or center. But really, it’s about a discussion about policy and how do we get to this point, we’re saying something like Medicare for All, which makes common sense, is an ideological position? Why do we think of policies that make sense, speaking to the idea of the common good, policies that help people are somehow leftist or ideological? It doesn’t really make any sense. Why do we view them way? Is that the wrong way to view them?

Robert Reich:

It’s completely the wrong way to view them. I don’t even know what left and right means anymore. Because people who are associated with the left do talk the language of the common good. People with a right talk the language that is most conducive to the rich, getting richer, to big corporations and Wall Street and very wealthy people doing even better. Why can’t we all speak the language of the common good? Shouldn’t that be the political debate we’re having or we should have?

Stephen Janis:

I think so.

Robert Reich:

I frankly don’t understand it. And it becomes even stranger today because when people say Democrats should move to the center, what’s the center in democracy and fascism? I don’t understand what the center is.

Stephen Janis:

It’s kind of a hybrid, an impossible hybrid. You can’t have a hybrid of autocracy and democracy. But yeah. No. I’m glad you made that point, because I really feel like we get lost the minute this debate starts like, well, they wanted Medicare for all, so they went too far radical for the people of this country. Or they want to have job programs or things that are … It just makes no sense and we can’t get trapped in that. I mean, Professor …

Robert Reich:

Particularly, Stephen, when you look at other advanced nations that are not even as wealthy as we are, that are wealthy, but they’re not even as wealthy as the United States. They have paid family leave. That’s common. They provide their people by law with four weeks or five weeks vacation every year. I mean, that’s the law. They provide medical care to almost everybody. They provide access to college that is almost free to everybody. I mean, these are standard common goods in most other advanced nations. We are the outlier. We are the extremes with regard to catering to the big corporations and the financiers and the very, very wealthy.

Taya Graham:

I was actually really excited because you’re a former cabinet member, so I thought you would have some interesting insights into President Trump’s cabinet picks. And one that I’m particularly interested in is the proposed department of government efficiency, which has been tasked to look for government waste and inefficiency. And in my opinion isn’t a bad idea in theory.

But the fact that not one but two billionaires are in charge is something that I find extremely problematic. I mean, they’re great at accruing capital, but treating something that’s a public good as a for-profit enterprise, from what I’ve seen in my own city, Baltimore, doesn’t necessarily benefit the public. So, I was just wondering, is there any way that a Department of Government efficiency could be useful and what would that look like and do you think this one has any potential?

Robert Reich:

Yeah. The most useful thing that something like this could do would be to look at what are called tax expenditures. Now, when I say that word, people’s eyes glaze over. But I’m going to say it again, tax expenditures. These are things like the mortgage interest deduction or all of the benefits that corporations get from a rapid appreciation, depreciation or all of the other specific tax breaks and loopholes for Wall Street in the tax code.

If you go after them, I mean, look at the carried interest tax loophole that goes really to hedge fund managers and to private equity managers. There is literally no reason for that loophole. That’s inefficient. It means that everybody else has to pay more in taxes. Let’s get rid of it. And look at the mortgage interest deduction. I mean, I can understand for low-income or middle-income homeowners. But why should homeowners who are earning over $500,000 a year and are living in mansions, why should they get a mortgage interest deduction? Get rid of it.

And we could go through all of the special loopholes and tax breaks that have been put into the tax code because big corporations and wealthy people have the clout to get them. Start there. Elon. Elon, are you hearing me? There.

Stephen Janis:

Wait. Professor, I just want to assure you, we did a documentary called Tax Broke, which we did for five years, follow tax breaks given to corporate developers. Any time …

Taya Graham:

Yeah. And if you want to talk about people’s eyes glazing over talk to them about tax increment financing.

Stephen Janis:

Anytime you want to talk about tax breaks for corporate entities, you just call us up. Anytime, because we can talk about it for hours. And I agree. It’s like this invisible economy or invisible landscape that just gives so many benefits to people who don’t need it.

Robert Reich:

It’s huge. Stephen, here’s another thing that Elon and Vivek Ramaswamy are to be focusing on, all of the government contractors, government contracting, and the spending we do as taxpayers for government contractors is so much greater than the direct government spending on government employees. I mean, go after the contractors like SpaceX, for example.

Stephen Janis:

I don’t know if that’s going to happen though.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

That would be interesting, yes, to see if he turns on himself. I would be …

Taya Graham:

Maybe Vivek will do it.

Stephen Janis:

And to this idea, because you’re bringing up … I mean, God, I can’t tell you how much corporate tax breaks infuriate me. But that conversation never seems to make it to the surface, because of the media ecosystem we’re in. There are people like you who are doing this. But how do we get of above and beyond? And so, the discussion is about things that you point out that really matter, like tax breaks. How do we get beyond the system we’re in right now of a media that seems to just only provide us with conflict?

Robert Reich:

I mean, you know better than I do. One of the great frustrations of my life, at least, is that the media, the mainstream media and Fox News and Newsmax, whether you’re talking about the right or even the center, they don’t go after what’s really important. They don’t try to educate the public about what the public needs to know.

They just tantalize or they talk about scandals. But they don’t talk about reality. And I don’t know how to change that. I mean, there’s more money to be made in getting people upset and fearful, but you talk about some of these tax breaks that are warranted. You can make people pretty outraged. Why don’t we do that?

Stephen Janis:

It’s a great question. I was watching CNN and they had an expert on social security and he kept talking about how social security was going to be insolvent. But he never brought up the idea that there’s a cap on social security taxes. And I was like, “Bring it up.” And I was screaming at the television set. And doesn’t that stuff infuriate you? I mean, come on. You know that if they lift the cap on social security, we could be much more solvent, right?

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Robert Reich:

Most people do not know. Most people know that they have to pay social security taxes.

Stephen Janis:

100%.

Robert Reich:

But they didn’t know that Elon Musk finishes paying his social security obligations at 18 seconds past midnight January 1st of the year. I mean, this is what people need to understand.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

That’s such an excellent point. I just wanted to follow up because you were the director of the Federal Trade Commission. And please correct me if I’m wrong. But you wanted children not to be targeted by companies selling sugary and unhealthy foods. And it seemed to me your reward for that was having the FTC being starved of money until it shut down. So, I was just wondering if that effect of corporate interest on our government is still that naked or do you think this could happen to other government agencies, especially under the new administration?

I mean, as a reporter, to me, it’s an astonishing story. It’s just they cut the money off because they didn’t like the fact they were going to lose out on their sugary cereal money. So, I was just wondering, is this something that could happen again and what can we do as investigative reporters, journalists, people to try to engage with this?

Robert Reich:

Well, it is going to happen again. It’s already happening. I mean, look at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is really helping and protecting a lot of people. They may not know exactly how they’re being protected, because it’s a little bit complicated. But that’s one of the places that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, they want to eliminate.

Most people don’t know that the federal government provides federal aid to education that’s mostly goes to poor school districts. So, you get rid of the education department and you’re hurting a poor kids. That’s what you’re really doing. Most people have no idea, and yet that’s going to go on as well.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

So, you have one final question.

Taya Graham:

Well, I was actually curious about how important you think independent media is right now, non-corporate media, like your inequality media or maybe Professor Wolff’s Democracy at Work. Do you think it can make a difference, because there is so much noise, but how important do you think it is right now?

Robert Reich:

Non-corporate media is extraordinarily important. But here’s the problem. You have to have some way of financing your media. Now, subscription services are useful to some extent, but it’s expensive. It takes a bigger chunk out of the paycheck of a low-income person than a high-income person. So, how do you finance the media you need?

Years ago, we thought national public radio and public television were good things, and they ought to be financed out of taxpayers’ funds. But they’ve been vilified by the right. Well, what’s the alternative? Social media has become too often a kind of cesspool of disinformation. How do you make social media work? Well, you certainly don’t put Elon Musk in charge of what used to be Twitter.

Taya Graham:

I just have to ask you something, and this may seem like an extreme question. But there are billionaires, you can tell I’m a little obsessed with them, who really poured their money into political campaigns. I mean, Vice President Harris received support. I mean, she raised over a billion dollars. But Trump was no slouch, and he had at least 50 billionaires, including Elon Musk, pour money into his campaign.

So, my question is, is that when there are individuals with this extreme wealth and they’re able to influence our politicians, I believe they’re thwarting the will of we the people. So, this may sound radical, but are billionaires, authoritarians, and are they actually actively undermining our democracy?

Robert Reich:

Well, some billionaires are. I mean, I don’t think it’s sensible to simply say every billionaire is abusing his or her status and power and money. But when they put money, their own money, their own billions of dollars, or their own hundreds of thousands of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign or into somebody’s campaign to prevent somebody from getting into office or into a campaign that is an issue campaign, that is a corruption of the political system. That kind of abuse I think has to be stopped.

The Supreme Court has been proven wrong in terms of its series of decisions that said that money is the equivalent of speech and corporations are people. I mean, it’s absolutely absurd.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. But I just wanted to say, I mean, it’s interesting because a lot of times when I was watching some of your discussions, especially in the documentary, you were talking about how money equals power. But that’s a lot of concentrated power in a billionaire. Isn’t that inherently unhealthy to have so much power in like 800 people who can really shape, as Taya said, our system in ways we don’t even understand?

Robert Reich:

It is. And if we had a sensible tax system, the tax wealth, we would not have that kind of problem. But we can’t get that kind of tax system because the billionaires and people who are almost billionaires have too much power. You see, that’s the chicken and egg dilemma we’re in right now. And short of a revolution. And I don’t know what that means. I don’t know how we get out of that chicken and egg dilemma.

Stephen Janis:

I know. I know. I mean, a revolution would be interesting. I’d love to cover it. I mean, it might not be fun. But I often think about that because it’s so entrenched in our political system and that power is immovable or immutable in many ways. It’s made immutable by that. And how we could go back to say the 1950s, when what? I hear this, and I don’t know if this is right, Professor, but there was a marginal tax rate of 92% or something on the highest earners. I don’t know how we get back to that or is it even possible?

Robert Reich:

First of all, it was not quite that.

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Robert Reich:

Once you include all of the deductions and tax credits, it was more like 52%. But can you imagine 52% tax rate federal on the highest earners would be impossible to enact today. And that was under the Eisenhower administration.

Stephen Janis:

He’s Republican.

Robert Reich:

That was not even a Democratic administration.

Stephen Janis:

I know. I know. Amazing.

Taya Graham:

I just had to ask you one more question because I had recently watched your documentary, Saving Capitalism. And there’s something that you said in there that was haunting me. And so, this is paraphrasing a little bit. But you essentially said that people, regular, non-wealthy people have literally 0% impact on public policy. And to me that is a terrifying statement. Could you elaborate on it a little bit and just help us understand it and if there’s any remedy?

Robert Reich:

Well, that actual conclusion comes from a study done by two political scientists, a very famous study in which they looked at something in the order of 1,800 random public policy issues before Congress during a limited period of time, even before the Citizens United decision. So, this is before we had the degree of corporate money in politics.

And their conclusion was that the concerns of average Americans have an insignificant effect on public policy that corporations and very wealthy people and Wall Street really did determine the public agenda. Now, this was again before Citizens United opened the floodgates to big money in politics.

I think that we have got to have a constitutional amendment that stops big money in politics that restores the notion that corporations are not people and money is not speech. Those two notions. And also, we have public financing of elections so that small donors are matched by a public fund, and that gives an incentive to politicians who agree to limits on their own funding to seek public funding instead.

Taya Graham:

That’s excellent. Professor Reich, we cannot thank you enough for your time. And I do want you to know that in your honor, I did wear my Union Steward pin. I’m a communication worker’s union steward. So, I just want you to know I wore that in your honor, Professor.

Stephen Janis:

This is a union shop here.

Robert Reich:

I appreciate that. And I appreciate the time with both of you. These are big and important issues. They’re not going away. My concern is that they’re getting worse.

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Ours as well.

Stephen Janis:

Ours as well. Well, thank you so much.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Professor.

Stephen Janis:

And remember, anytime you want to talk about tax breaks, call me.

Taya Graham:

Yes. Tax increment, financing, payment, loop taxes, we’re the ones to call.

Robert Reich:

I want to talk about it all the time. So, I’ll call you all the time.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Great. I look forward to it.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you so much.

Robert Reich:

Bye-bye.

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Bye.

Taya Graham:

So, first, I just have to thank our guest, Professor Robert Reich. I don’t think there is a more distinct or important voice in the struggle against and search for solutions to inequality. His willingness to take the time to share his insight with us is invaluable, and we so deeply appreciate it.

Stephen Janis:

I just hope he calls me about tax breaks because …

Taya Graham:

I do too.

Stephen Janis:

I feel like I’m out in the wilderness here. No one wants to talk about tax breaks. They think I’m kind of weird and obsessed.

Taya Graham:

I know. We can only talk to each other about tax increment financing. It’d be nice to talk to someone else about it.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. So, maybe I hope he does keep his promise and give me a call.

Taya Graham:

I actually want to go back, maybe get my CPA or something, so I can actually understand the tax code. It seems like that’s where all the money hides.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. That’s where all the action is.

Taya Graham:

Really is. Who would’ve thought.

Stephen Janis:

In this great inequality divide we have.

Taya Graham:

Very true. So, I just want to do a little closing speech here. So, if you don’t mind, we’re just going to jump right in.

Stephen Janis:

Can’t wait to hear it.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So, now, after diving deep into the two forces shaping and breaking the American economy, one thing is crystal clear. Both wealth inequality and globalization are symptoms of the same disease. That disease is a system designed to prioritize the profits of the few over the well-being of the many.

And the stories may differ whether it’s a billionaire dodging taxes or a factory worker losing their job to offshoring. But the results are eerily similar, a hollowed-out middle class, skyrocketing inequality, and a political system that seems incapable or unwilling to fight back. So, let’s break it down.

Globalization in its current form has done more than just shift manufacturing overseas. It’s created a race to the bottom where corporations scour the globe for the cheapest labor and the fewest regulations, leaving American workers to pick up the pieces. Wealth taxation, or rather, the lack of it ensures that profits from this exploitation stays concentrated at the top, untouched by the very policies that could help level the playing field.

Together, these two forces create the two-tiered economy we’ve spent this conversation dissecting, a system where the rich live by a different set of rules than everyone else. But here’s the kicker, it doesn’t have to be this way. The solutions we’ve discussed implementing a wealth tax, we’re writing trade agreements to prioritize workers over corporations, maybe even investing in green jobs and infrastructure. These aren’t just pipe dreams. These are viable evidence-backed policies that could transfer our economy into one that works for everyone.

And the question isn’t whether we have the resources or the tools, it’s whether we have the political will. And that’s where the stakes get even higher. Because as Robert Reich so astutely pointed out, the wealth isn’t just money, it’s power. The billionaires who dodge taxes and the corporations that exploit globalization aren’t just enriching themselves. They’re shaping the very policies and systems that allow them to keep doing it.

It’s a feedback loop that corrodes democracy leaving the rest of us stuck in a system that feels increasingly rigged. So, what do we do? First, we need to change the narrative. The idea that taxing billionaires or reigning in globalization is somehow radical is a lie perpetuated by those who benefit from the status quo.

What’s radical is allowing an economy where the wealthiest 1% own more than the bottom 90%. What’s radical is ignoring the voices of millions of workers while bending over backwards for corporations. And what’s truly radical is thinking we can continue down this path without catastrophic consequences.

Now, second, we need to build power not just in Washington, but in our own communities, whether it’s organizing unions to demand better wages, supporting candidates who will fight for economic justice, or simply having conversations that challenge the myths of trickledown economics and free trade. The change starts with us. The billionaires might have the money. But history has shown us time and again, that people united around a common cause can be an unstoppable force.

So, as we close, I want to leave you with this. The fight against the two-tiered economy isn’t just about money. It’s about dignity. It’s about whether we value people not for the profits they generate, but for their inherent worth as human beings. And it’s about whether we’re willing to demand an economy and a democracy that reflects those values. And the stakes couldn’t be higher.

But I think the solutions are within reach, and it’s up to us to decide whether we’ll keep playing by the rigged rules of the game or whether we will rewrite them entirely. Let’s make the choice together while we still can. Okay. Stephen, you know how I love to speechify. Is there anything you would like to add?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, it’s really interesting having come after. That’s a pretty hard act to follow. But I will say that movement building strikes me as very difficult and a very, let’s say, dicey proposition in the media ecosystem we talked about before, because it’s not structured around accumulating some epistemology or knowledge of a subject like we do with tax breaks. It’s more about emotion and being aggrieved.

And I just worry about that. I worry about the type of system we have to come to some conclusions about specific things we want to. You have to change something specific. You can’t just say, “We’re going to fight for change.” It’s got to be something that looks specific. And we spent all these years, for example, trying to change this horribly unequal system about tax breaks for developers. And it’s been very hard and we’ve been on our own. And we even received pushback from people who I think would actually think it was a good idea.

And the Democrats completely punted on it, wouldn’t even allow a vote on the bill that would’ve shown people what happened. Now, we’ve talked about this before, but I worry about that because it’s hard. It’s really hard to permeate people’s TikTok lives and say, “Okay. This is a very complex issue, but we don’t change it. And I think if we don’t address that, it’s going to be very hard to bring about real change.” So, that’s my opinion.

Taya Graham:

I think you’re right. And I just wanted to speak to some of the folks in the comments and in the live chat who ask about my analysis. And I’ve seen a few people say, “Taya, you’re a criminal justice reporter. The police accountability reporter.” I still am. But my reporting has always at heart been about government accountability and that’s exposing corruption or inequity. And whether that’s blue or red, it doesn’t matter to me.

Right now, I think the greatest inequality and justice isn’t necessarily coming from left to right or Demo-Republican. It’s the top 10% versus the bottom 90%. It’s like the top 1% is driving the car of our democracy and the two parties in the back seat, and we’re the ones being taken for the ride.

Stephen Janis:

So, you’re doing Dave Chappelle.

Taya Graham:

So, my analysis will always be based on searching for policies that do the most good for the most people. And as far as I can tell, that’s not how billionaires think. But as always, I do want to know your thoughts in the comments. You know I read them and I answer as many questions as I can. And I really do appreciate your input and insights. I always have more to learn, and that’s why I love being a reporter. You get to keep asking questions.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank you all for being patient, for watching us and joining us. And of course, we have to thank our great studio, David and Cameron and Adam and Jocelyn, and Kayla and James and our editor-in-chief, Max. See you all in the comment section. This is Taya Graham and Stephen Janis reporting for The Real News Network.

 

https://therealnews.com/robert-reich-predicted-the-death-of-the-us-middle-class

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”       Mao Zedong

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.