Unapologetic populism?

Written By: - Date published: 7:51 am, October 29th, 2019 - 44 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, Economy, Environment, International, us politics, workers' rights, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

It seems that Wall Street is getting worried.  One of the Democratic nominees has been described by a Wall Street broker as an unapologetic populist.  

Why you may ask.

For saying that the country is too PC? 

For bene bashing for political gain?

For railing against criminals and suggesting that a court decision was evidence that the Government is trying to undermine law and order?

For opposing a bill that tightens up legal protection in dealing with possible ISIS supporters because it does not include 14 year olds as well?

No …

From Vanity Fair:

In a note to his high-net-worth clients on October 8, Barrett Tabeek, a financial adviser at Matauro, LLC, an affiliate of AXA, the giant French insurance company, makes clear that [an Elizabeth Warren presidency] won’t be good for corporate earnings, which means she won’t be good for the stock market, which means she won’t be good for shareholders who have no doubt gotten quite used to the stock market highs unleashed by Donald Trump’s massive tax cut for corporate America. “Everyone has their hierarchy of what’s important,” Tabeek wrote, “and Warren is an unapologetic populist who, if in power, would enact policies designed to reduce corporate earnings to benefit other stakeholders.” In the group that stands to benefit from a Warren presidency, Tabeek puts “workers,” then the “environment” and “those with lower incomes,” and finally “women and minorities.”

While he’s adamant that he’s not being political in his four-page note, Tabeek evaluated 10 of Warren’s policy proposals—among them, “ban fracking,” “increased taxes on the wealthy,” “break up big tech,” and “reinstate Glass- Steagall”—and pretty much declares that they will reduce corporate profits, reduce incomes for the super-wealthy, and raise gasoline prices for consumers. “The bottom line is that from a market standpoint, all of these policies would be negative for stocks, with some being downright negative for the broad markets (by reducing corporate earnings broadly) while others would be material negatives for certain sectors (large-cap tech, prison stocks, defense stocks, etc.),” he wrote. “How negative would these policies be for stocks? No one knows exactly, but it’s safe to say they’d be negative.”

Wall Street’s best hope, Tabeek notes, is that most of the policies that Warren would like to enact would need congressional approval, “and as such they are unlikely to be approved, at least based on what we know now.” He wrote that polls suggest that Warren is “more liberal than most Democrats (and obviously Republicans) so even if Democrats were to sweep (controlling Congress and the presidency), it’s unclear how many of these policies would be enacted,” although he pointed out that some of her policies, such as having the EPA ban fracking, could be done by executive order.

Let’s parse this. 

A Warren presidency would reduce corporate earnings to benefit other stakeholders.  These include workers, the environment, those with lower incomes, and women and minorities.

She would ban fracking, increase taxes on the wealthy, break up big tech, and reinstate Glass- Steagall, US legislation that limited banking powers.

She would reduce corporate profits, oversee the reduction of super-wealthy incomes, and raise gasoline prices for consumers.  The last proposal is more problematic politically but vital if our planet is to survive.  The others should be no brainers if we want to improve equality.

Bernie Sanders is still hanging in there against Joe Biden who still thinks he is relevant.

But I think I might have a new personal preference for the next POTUS.

 

44 comments on “Unapologetic populism? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    29 October 2019 at 8:31 am

    Watch this clip and consider the following:

    Can you imagine a genuine socialist like AOC being as disrespectful to a questioner?

    Is dismissing a vast swath of the American electorate in such a haughty, smug liberal fashion a good idea, or potentially a "deplorables" moment that will come back to haunt her?

    Is it a a good idea for a candidate for president to burn a good faith questioner with a smart arse response full of misandry? Who is she appealing to with that answer? Coastal elites?

    Is a privileged, wealthy women playing at being oppressed by men going to win back depressed coal regions?

    Warren isn't Clinton, but if she makes comments like that during an election campaign she is toast and Trump will romp home.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8-Ln3FK64&t=34s

    • tc 1.1
      29 October 2019 at 9:29 am

      "reinstate Glass- Steagall.." Which Clinton (D) repealed in 99. Problem here see is about brand (D) so with the media behind the Clown that takes care of middle couch potato america.

      Polling coverage quirks, enrollment access/resourcing will probably get a boost to take care of lower america.

      • Dukeofurl 1.1.1
        29 October 2019 at 11:54 am

        ""reinstate Glass- Steagall.." Which Clinton (D) repealed in 99."

        Presidents dont repeal , only Congress.

    • AB 1.2
      29 October 2019 at 9:59 am

      It looked like a planted question and a scripted response. And scripted by someone – to be fair maybe not Warren herself – with no political nous. It was playing to the liberal, professional-managerial, elite crowd – who clearly loved it. As you say, a real socialist who doesn't despise ordinary people or lack the ability to imagine the lives of others, would have come up with a less disrespectful and less alienating response. And done so while still conveying the idea that in matters of victimless private behaviour, we don't get to impose our beliefs on other people.

      • Sanctuary 1.2.1
        29 October 2019 at 10:14 am

        It was a planted question, the guy is apparently a donor to her campaign.

        Which simply reinforces my central question – what was warren trying to achieve with the question, and who was her audience, especially in the context of needing to win swing rust belt states?

        • weka 1.2.1.1
          29 October 2019 at 11:52 am

          I haven't been following particularly closely, but at this stage isn't she positioning herself in relation to Dem nominees? i.e. this was aimed at people who will be selecting the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

          I think it was not a good move on her part, for lots of reasons. Otoh, writing her off as pretending to be oppressed disses the huge swathe of US women who give a shit about their class, and kind of supports what she did. Or maybe is the equivalent of what she did. Tit for tat.

    • Climaction 1.3
      29 October 2019 at 12:13 pm

      The last thing the climate needs are “genuine” socialists.

    • McFlock 1.4
      29 October 2019 at 1:35 pm

      It's not just a pithy answer – it shows exactly what the "marriage" debate is about. People getting worked up about shit that doesn't affect them.

      And it wasn't disrespectful. It was straight up.

      I think the big mistake is to fall into the "coast vs flyover" narrative: it's also an urban/rural divide.

    • mike 1.5
      29 October 2019 at 5:03 pm

      By linking to the clip, you let Elizabeth Warren trash all the warped ideas you were trying to pedal.

      Has treating everyone fairly and with respect, and pointing out that we're all equal but different become a crime now?

      Not in my world.

      And I'll take my world over yours any day.

    • Phil 1.6
      30 October 2019 at 9:48 am

      Fuck off with this pearl clutching 'Morning Joe' concern trolling, Sanc.

  2. aom 2
    29 October 2019 at 9:21 am

    What are you saying Santuary – that the US needs a President who is the same as Trump but could have female genitals? Perhaps you should change your mindset then watch the clip five more times to make sense of the dialogue instead of expecting the responses of the candidate to conform to your pre-conceived notions.

  3. Dot 3
    29 October 2019 at 10:00 am

    Go well Elizabeth Warren !

  4. UncookedSelachimorpha 4
    29 October 2019 at 10:11 am

    Socialist / left wing ideas are actually quite popular – so if a politician can get elected by promoting them to the public, it’s all good I reckon!

  5. aj 5
    29 October 2019 at 10:55 am

    If she wins – a big if – it will only be because Sanders prepared the ground for her.

    Words and deed are different things. She is a politician after all.

  6. bwaghorn 6
    29 October 2019 at 11:26 am

    It sounds like Warren should be using tabeek as her campaign manager.

    I'd vote for her on what he said about her😎

  7. weka 7
    29 October 2019 at 11:54 am

    "would enact policies designed to reduce corporate earnings to benefit other stakeholders"

    At least he's being honest.

  8. Wensleydale 8
    29 October 2019 at 12:05 pm

    Guys like Tabeek make me chuckle. He's a brazen vested interest having a moan about Warren wanting to redress the balance a little. "But, but… my profits!" When super-wealthy people like Nick Hanauer are desperately attempting to get their peers to see the storm on the horizon, the Tabeek's of the world are still clutching their pearls and worrying about how they're going to cope when they're legislatively compelled to be slightly less wealthy. Your money will not save you from the rampaging mobs when they show up outside your gated community. Tabeek's like a man trapped in quicksand worrying about how he's going to get the mud out of his fashionable trousers.

  9. The Al1en 9
    29 October 2019 at 1:15 pm

    So putting wishful thinking and high hopes to one side, it's Warren v Biden for the Dem nomination, who do you pick?

    And when it's Warren v Trump. Are some of us still unwilling to play the lesser of two evils game?

    • weka 9.1
      29 October 2019 at 1:22 pm

      it's the American presidency, it's always the lesser to two evils.

      • Andre 9.1.1
        29 October 2019 at 3:37 pm

        Yup. Anyone that can actually make it through the process of getting elected is going to have some pretty major personality negatives. Let alone the nature of the job means almost half the population is going to be angry at the outcome of any action no matter how good someone is. Hell, after 4 years in that office, even Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Jesus or even Saint Bernie himself would have acquired haters across the political spectrum.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          29 October 2019 at 3:45 pm

          that too. I was thinking of US foreign policy and how it doesn't matter who is president, they're still doing some pretty shitty stuff, just lesser evil than the other lot.

      • The Al1en 9.1.2
        29 October 2019 at 5:21 pm

        it's the American presidency, it's always the lesser to two evils.

        Ha, true enough.

    • mauī 9.2
      29 October 2019 at 2:26 pm

      The lesser of two evils sure worked last time… why not try it again.

      • Alice Tectonite 9.2.1
        29 October 2019 at 2:48 pm

        Are you (implicitly) suggesting that the greater of two evils should be tried?

        • McFlock 9.2.1.1
          29 October 2019 at 2:55 pm

          Not to mention the implicit suggestion that dolt45 was the lesser evil compared to Clinton.

          • weka 9.2.1.1.1
            29 October 2019 at 3:38 pm

            it's ok, at least they didn't end up with a President that bombed other countries.

            • weka 9.2.1.1.1.1
              29 October 2019 at 3:39 pm

              oh, and all those women in poor countries that are better off this way than the other.

              • McFlock …
                29 October 2019 at 4:36 pm

                And at least the Saudis will be paying for US troops to do their killing, rather than the yanks doing it for free.

          • Alice Tectonite 9.2.1.1.2
            30 October 2019 at 9:32 am

            Sadly expected from Trumped up consumers of kremlin kool aid that recycle right wing talking points (of the alternative kind).

            How much promoting of authoritarian right wing propaganda can self proclaimed lefties do while remaining left wing?

            • mauī 9.2.1.1.2.1
              30 October 2019 at 8:45 pm

              God and one of the Dem candidates has appeared on the RT tv channel so the only explanation is that they must be working for the Russians!

              • McFlock …
                30 October 2019 at 8:55 pm

                God was nowhere near RT.

              • Alice Tectonite …
                1 November 2019 at 12:27 pm

                Anything on RT should be read/watched critically, doubly so when it concerns the actions of or policies that benefit the current Russian Government. This is what you fail to do, while being hyper critical of any western media. All media should be regarded at least somewhat critically. All media is biased.

                The fact that you see RT as the truth strongly suggests that its bias is a good fit with your own.

                On this site you've:

                • boosted Trump
                • boosted Putin
                • promoted alt-right news sources as credible
                • banged on about her emails
                • stated your desire to bring in non left authors

                This all suggests right wing stuff resonates strongly with you on some level…

      • The Al1en 9.2.2
        29 October 2019 at 5:22 pm

        The looniest left strikes again lol

  10. Formerly Ross 10
    29 October 2019 at 5:37 pm

    Morrissey complained in “America is not the world” that the US wasn’t relevant because it’s president wasn’t black, female or gay. Of course the song came out before Obama was elected. But it does beg the question: do voters in the US dislike female candidates sufficiently to deny them the top job?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QON6SSMLcC8

    • marty mars 10.1
      29 October 2019 at 8:48 pm

      he's got no cred mate – racist right winger

      Morrissey reaffirms support for far-right party and claims 'everyone prefers their own race'

      https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/morrissey-interview-far-right-for-britain-racist-brexit-nigel-farage-a8973276.html

      • Formerly Ross 10.1.1
        30 October 2019 at 10:19 am

        Oh he has plenty of musical credibility. And he’s correct when he says: “If you call someone racist in modern Britain you are telling them that you have run out of words. You are shutting the debate down and running off. The word is meaningless now.”

        But you are getting a little of topic. The issue is that the US can elect a black president before a female notwithstanding that there is not inconsiderable systemic racism. What chance is there of a woman becoming president?

        • marty mars 10.1.1.1
          30 October 2019 at 12:04 pm

          music cred? Sure The Smiths were great but he ain't imo. The quote is stupid and designed for right wingers imo.

          I think t.rump will get another term – cause more sorts of shit around the world and in the US – add increasing climate mayhem, refugees, economic downturn, greed, biosphere die-off, pollution and plastic. This will (eventually) create a space for someone who cares and has the mana to come into her own and at that time Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will become US President – I hope. Not sure what she will be able to do but I’ll be happy to see her get up there and try.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.