Robert Reich

Robert Reich the 3rd (or the 3rd Reich), seems to be a German with Napoleon Syndrome, and pick the wrong side of every issue. The charm of Rosie O'Donnell, the wit of Nancy Pelosi, and the balance of Michael Moore, if I want a moral compass, I use him for his knack to always point due south. This article details a small fraction of his stupidity and dishonesty.

Background

The Pastrami Commie is had a problem with bullies as a kid (he’s got Fairbanks/MED, or politically incorrect, “dwarfism"), and so at some point in life decided the best way not to be bullied was to become one.

His judgement can be summed by the fact that he went on a date with Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has a degree in Law, and while he took some classes in economics, he seems to have retained little knowledge of it, since most disagree with his delusions about it.^[1]

He’s a prolific author and writer, because he writes things that appeals greatly to the left and uninformed (but I repeat myself). Yet, his premises are almost always completely wrong, thus his conclusions based on that foundation are worse. So he’s been a die hard advocate for less civil liberties, and for empowering government to burden business and individuals and remove as many opportunities as humanly possible: thus he’s often quoted by the progressive left. Technically, he’s doesn’t come from the Marxist or Socialist sides as much as the Fascist side of economics: believing a high controlled

His books include:

The Next American Frontier (1983) - where he blamed the nation's lagging economic growth on financial and legal gamesmanship (that drained the economy of resources needed for better products and services). In other words — there was too much financial gain in manipulating the bureaucracy. So his solution was and always is, more bureaucracy to fix that. (e.g. Centralized Control Socialism/Communism/Fascism could run the economy better, if you gave it a try). It’s a popular idea among the left, but ignores it’s history of repeated failure everywhere it’s been tried.
The Work of Nations - the foundation of economics is on human capital. This is called the Labor theory of value in economics, and while Marxism was based on it, it’s been completely discredited since the early 20th century. He’s regurgitating it, and trying to drag his readers back 100 years in economics, because his base doesn’t know better.

After those two dog of books, that were panned by economics, but celebrated by polemics, Clinton appointed him Secretary of Labor. And he's been a boil on the ass of political discourse ever since.

History

Minimum Wage

He's the mouthpiece (or piece of something) over the whole Minimum Wage never hurts the economy thing, under the argument that we should have the same wage in Manhattan, Kansas as Manhattan, New York. He's either a mentally retarded economist, or a flat out liar and polemic... and he's too articulate to be mentally retarded. ^[2]

He goes on and on, on this topic. He talks about how "Higher wages can save America’s economy" and of course gets panned by anyone with a clue in economics. ^[3]

CEO Pay

He loves to rails against CEO salaries... and he makes 36% more than the average CEO on the Public's dime ^[4]. Um, if the public doesn't like a CEO or Corporation, they just don't buy their products/services. Tada. No one makes you do anything. They can vote with their wallet. If you don't like a little Marxist lecturer, how do you get your government (California) to stop paying him? That's the difference between liberty and fascism.

Electoral College

He did a video mis-explaining why he's against the Electoral College... which is another way of saying he's against the Constitution and America. While he dodges it, without the Electoral College, there would be no America -- the small states wouldn't have joined, because their votes wouldn't matter. And if you wiped out the electoral college tomorrow, the same thing would happen -- the tyranny of a few big progressive states would tear the nation apart, as the bullied states would feel they're getting no say, and try to leave. ^[5]

Endorcements

The little hypocrite open loves Bernie Sanders: they belonged to the same clubs: Jews who hate Jews/Israel, Marxist weekly, and so on. He also despised Ted Cruz because he's a principled Constitutionalist, so endorsed Donald Trump over him. ^[6] And he hates Paul Ryan because he's not a marxist. ^[7]

Inciting Race Wars

Here's Mini-Marx spreading lies about race violence to achieve his ends: of dividing us as a nation by perpetuating lies.

He's trying to lead the ignorant (his base) into believing that cops had no right to approach a guy (Keith Lamont Scott) for smoking weed and suspicious activity (like waiving a gun, that he's not allowed to own as a felon) after neighbors called it in, and instead implies, "wasn't it racism/murder to shoot the guy just for pulling a gun on cops?"

His lies of omission are that (a) Reich hates the Second Amendment (b) that Keith was approached by a black officer (that would imply the motive is unlikely to be racism?) (c) that Scott was a convicted felon and not able to have a gun (and that was rumored to be part of the original reason for contact) (d) this was a sketchy part of town, known for where drug deals went down (e) even if you have a right to carry, if you look disoriented or out of it, are hanging out in a car, getting in and out of the car, and look suspicious, a cop might come up and check things out, "hey, what's up? Everything OK?" And if you have a reasonable response, that's the end of the contact. If you ignore the cop, get back in the car holding a gun, and 10 other officers come to the scene and say "out of the car, and drop the gun", at least 14 times. If you follow directions, your odds of survival are orders of magnitude higher than if you come out of the car holding said weapon. This is something anyone with a high double digit IQ knows, even a liberal economist should know that, and not leave it out of an honest reporting of events. ^[8]

7 Lies

Reich gets famous for propaganda like this video on economic lies that he claims are refuted, but economists know are not lies at all. ^[9]

(1) Trickle Down economics

Look, if you give tax breaks to the rich (trickle down) or poor (trickle up), and the economy does better (at least in the short term). How can letting people have more of their own money NOT result in more spending/investment/growth?

There's a debate on where cutting (indirect spending) and direct spending might get a better return for the economy. But the ignorant left has a visceral reaction to their derogatory term for Kennedy and other prior Democrats (as well as Reagan, Bush, and Trump's) ideas that cutting taxes stimulates the economy. Pretending that it doesn't do as much as other kinds of tax cuts or spending, can be an intelligent argument. Lying that it does nothing, is just dishonest polemics.

(2) Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth

This is the inverse of the prior argument, and just as stupid. If I told you I was going to increase your taxes, would you spend more or save (and hide) more? Common sense, and recorded history, tells us increasing people's burdens gets them to be more defensive with their money. That hurts the economy and job growth. Now can what you do to spend other people's money be better for the economy or job growth than what they were going to do with it? Maybe. It's never worked out that way, but at least in theory, it's plausible. But Reich isn't arguing that it might work, he's arguing that it's never hurt the economy when we know the opposite to be true.

(3) Shrinking government generates more jobs

This is considered the treasury view of economics, which most economists agree with. In the short term, you displace some jobs -- in the long term, you reduce people's burdens and displace them with private sector jobs, which can do the same work, for less money/effort, and that puts more capital in the economy. Whether in savings, spending, or investing, that money goes to work increasing the "velocity of capital", and that increases jobs in the long run.

(4) Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy

Typical Democrat bullshit -- when their guy is in power, they demand more spending. When the other side is in power, they scream about deficits. This is the least dumb and dishonest of his arguments (which isn't saying much). But the point is both are important -- to a point. And they're not mutually exclusive -- though in general spending does help the economy -- just private spending helps more (as it is more efficient). And in the long term, growing government today, just burdens your kids and grandkids to payback your credit card dept (deficits).

(5) Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits

Social programs are over 2/3rds of the debt, and thus deficit. The fact that they auto-grow each year, and have been for 50+ years, is a HUGE contributor to the deficits. Flim-flammers will try to distract you while picking your pockets, but facts are facts. Without these programs, we might have more people sick or dying, but we'd also have a budget surplus.

(6) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme

By definition a Ponzi scheme is having one group pay for another group. Like when the young pay for the old's Social Security. At first, there was enough young-to-old that this didn't hurt budgets. Now there isn't, and it's going to drag the next couple generations into huge debt to pay off others. That's pretty much what a Ponzi scheme is.

(7) It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax

Yes. It's also morally corrupt. Everyone should bear the burden of the government they vote for. Period. They might still get more in benefits than costs. But the idea that some people should pay nothing, while others pay 90% of what they make, is the definition of unfair.

^[10]

Conclusion

Reich is either a fool or a liar. And I don't think anyone can be that intellectually stupid. What he pushes for would divide us as a nation. More than that, what he does abusing his fake pedigree for profit and attention, is just an insult to us all. He's a vile, petty little man -- not just in stature (which I don't care about) but in character (which I do). He got rich preying on the gullibility of the left, and abusing the public trust at Berkeley. He sponsors/supports the riots and violence against those that disagree with him. He misrepresents the other side, and his own -- and is the bully that he claims to hate.

Navigation menu