Robert Reich is a Berkeley professor and former U.S. Secretary of Labor who writes about inequality, politics, and the economy.
HN commenters cite his posts in arguments about political polarization, bank regulation and the 2008 crisis, and the effects of big retailers like Walmart.
Well, I read the article. It's not that great.
Why? Because it's a mix 'n match of quotes, bits and pieces and observations cobbled together to support the thesis that digital technology will disrupt how information - and therefore our thinking about the world - is controlled.
It's not that he's factually wrong about what he's saying. Rather, it's that the article lacks any references to a foundational understanding of historical dynamics and current affairs regarding economics, politics or economics.
Everything he discusses has a historical context steeped in competing ideological, economical and political theories that have shaped the world since World War 1. And yet, he makes no mention that background whatsoever. On the contrary.
For instance.
> Like a fish in water, we’re unaware of the integration between our education system, the corporate structure, and our media environment.
Uh. No. There's very much awareness about this among those who have participated in this debate and who are extremely worried about the state of education in America. And it's a debate about investing in public infrastructure, the advantages and drawbacks of free market dynamics in education and the long term impact on future generations.
For instance, Mary Sue Coleman, president of the Association of American Universities and former president of the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa, wrote in the Washington Post back in 2016:
> Public higher education is at a tipping…
Maybe not, but I think it's perfectly fair to have an article that looks into it. Too bad this article fell way short.
I would point out:
* Software companies, specifically, are more likely to be freeloaders than non-software companies. Tax avoidance schemes such as the Double Irish + Dutch Sandwich allow companies that make revenues primarily from intellectual property laws to skirt US and California taxation[1], and are therefore freeloading on the local governments by taking advantage of the talent from public schools (UC Berkeley), the local government infrastructure (roads, bridges, highways and freeways; a standardized electrical grid with a [somewhat] regulated utility company; financial regulations that keep [some] public faith in the banks and the US Dollar fiat currency; police system to keep the peace; fire systems to prevent runaway fires and catch arsonists; an intellectual property system that protects patents, copyrights, and trademarks [if you see the system as "protecting" these things]; a judicial system that allows persons and companies some say in how the law is applied to them and some opportunities to use litigation to enforce contracts; and national defense to prevent national instability and potential loss of private property or lives).
* For whatever reasons, tech companies want to be located within miles of each other, all challenging each other for talent and office space in a small geographic area, and all of the secondary effects of those…
I would have to disagree with that as a blanket statement.
Plenty of "successful" businesses use other means besides added value to extract rents from customers.
Robert Reich has recently written very eloquently and convincingly about how multi-national corps are using all sorts non-value producing economics to increase bottom lines at our expenses.
For example, Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals than do the citizens of any other developed nation.
That’s partly because it’s perfectly legal in the U.S. (but not in most other nations) for the makers of branded drugs to pay the makers of generic drugs to delay introducing cheaper unbranded equivalents, after patents on the brands have expired.
This costs you and me an estimated $3.5 billion a year – a hidden upward redistribution of our incomes to Pfizer, Merck, and other big proprietary drug companies, their executives, and major shareholders.[1]
[1] http://robertreich.org/post/132363519655
Re Glass-Steagall and 2008 crisis, Robert Reich and Elizabeth Warren disagree with you [https://robertreich.org/post/124114229225]. According to you, which legislation prevented the conflict-of-interest in banks writing trillions in subprime mortgages decades prior to 1999? or securities firms selling CDOs backed by subprime MBS? IIUC, the issue in 2008 was never "preventing mortgage CDOs" outright, but preventing the inflated valuations on junk tranches of subprime, i.e. mortgage lenders allowing securities sellers to intentionally create and sell junk with their assets.
(and I clearly didn't say Glass-Steagall would have done anything for SVB or Signature; I was saying banks like Chase's selective edit of the chain of events around 2008 was a whitewash because it omitted mention of key events.)
Robert Reich[1] in http://robertreich.org/post/26708840314:
And it would amount to a rip-off of almost cosmic
proportion – trillions of dollars that you and I and other
average people would otherwise have received or saved on
our lending and borrowing that have been going instead to
the bankers. It would make the other abuses of trust we’ve
witnessed look like child’s play by comparison.
Sad to say, there’s reason to believe this has been going
on, or something very much like it. This is what the
emerging scandal over “Libor” (short for “London interbank
offered rate”) is all about.
[1] Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration.
The campaign obviously had that concern and acted on it; it’s irrelevant if you think it’s “tortuous logic”. When did the affair occur? When did the payment occur, and what was the surrounding context? — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_scandal
Then, read this again — https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-money-case “This case alleges that in 2016 Trump arranged to pay off an adult entertainer in order to hide his affair with her from the public. The important thing to keep in mind is that the money was given to protect Trump’s campaign for the presidency — not to protect his marriage or protect him from personal embarrassment.”