Since it just about fits into the 25 year rule, let's talk about Japan's financial crisis and the "Lost Decade."

Since it just about fits into the 25 year rule, let's talk about Japan's financial crisis and the "Lost Decade."

What happened? What caused it? Is America to blame, like some people say?

Other urls found in this thread:

gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=a4g9Q26QkAo
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/women’s-rights-in-afghanistan/
gowans.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/for-whom-the-war-bill-tolls/
gowans.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/social-democracy-soviet-socialism-and-the-bottom-99-percent/
gowans.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/whose-rights/
gowans.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/aspiring-to-rule-the-world-us-capital-and-the-battle-for-syria/
gowans.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/canadian-foreign-policy-and-why-it-matters-to-workers/
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

bump for interest

There was a speculative bubble in the Japanese economy. Japanese banks lent with virtually no regard for the quality of buyers, mirroring the crisis in 2008 in the United States. The Bank of Japan realized the shit that was going on sharply raised interest rates in 1989, causing the boom to go bust. These interest rates caused stock and real estate prices to go down and the Japanese government bailed out the banks when their debt went badly. However, what was worse than the US was that these banks had so much bad debt that they couldn't really afford to do anything other than survive on bailout funds. Regardless of your perspective on the US economy post-2008, we can agree that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, et al are not merely sitting back with their bailout funds and are actively speculating in the market.

The reasons for the Lost Decade are much more convoluted. Paul Krugman argues that it's an example of a liquidity trap: monetary policy can't lower interest rates because they're already super low. Scott Sumner and Milton Friedman would say that the Japanese Lost Decade was caused by money being too tight, not too easy. They'd argue this by saying that low interest rates are not a sign of easy monetary policy, but the opposite- low interest rates are a sign that money has been tight, so by lowering interest rates so much, the Japanese are actually having tight monetary policy, which is impeding their growth. Fumio Hayashi and Edward Prescott argue that the Lost Decade is caused by low productivity and thus monetary/fiscal policy are ineffective, since those only raise consumption.

>What caused it? Is America to blame, like some people say?

It was Jews user, it's always Jews

...

...

>low productivity

Japan is famous for this. Their corporate culture is the most hilariously stagnant thing in existence. Many companies still rely on fax machines and workers are not fired, but shoved aside into tiny rooms where they are forced through isolation to resign of their own accord. Instead of allowing employees a chance to rest, they work for stupidly long hours greatly weakening their morale and productivity generally, then after work they are forced by Japanese cultural mores to go out drinking with the boss every evening.

>Keynesian policies don't wor-

Though I agree to an extent, this is a big meme

How is it a meme? Not doubting you, just curious.

...

It's heavily exaggerated. Japanese productivity since 1990 is up 80%.

US productivity since 1990 is up 85-90%.

Dumping

Whoops wrong chart

>krugman sumner and friedman
What would Smith, Keynes, and Hayek say?

Remember the Plaza Accord.

...

I read somewhere that massive corporate profit had something to do with it, that they were making so much money that they couldn't spend it all through expansion, compensation, bonuses, or dividends, so they invested the remainder in real estate, thus causing the bubble/

...

A big part of the reason. You might want to compare a graph of Japanese GDP growth and ¥/$ rate.

...

...

...

...

...

Is there any reason to believe that what Japan experienced is in the future for the rest of the Western world? You often hear how none of the fundamental which caused the crash in 2008 have really been solved, and that the can has really just been kicked down the road. Some economists now seem to predict an even greater bust in the coming years. Is there any credence to this?

...

Japan is an extremely unique case.

But there is a lot of talk of the post-2008 developed world falling into "Japanification".

I'd say yes to a certain extent, but we have learned from Japan's example.
Rule 1: Bail out your banks properly. Nationalize them if needed.
Rule 2: inflation is necessary for growth.
Rule 3: Don't be afraid to use loose monetary policy for an indeterminate period when real yields are negative.

This point of view seems to imply that Japan is basically fucked forever.

I have a very basic understanding of economics, but I sometimes wonder. Housing prices have recovered and continued to climb in my country since the crash. I have no data, but my impression is that banks, however, are more reluctant to take on risky debt now. This might not be the actual case though.

Sooner or later they'll get out of it, probably once the current generation of Japanese leadership caste dies of old age some time next millennium.

>banks, however, are more reluctant to take on risky debt now
The people running the banks are NEVER reluctant to take on risky debt because they ways of eliminating the risk to themselves, sometimes at a profit.

"Abenomics" (AKA Kuizinomics since his policies were the original ones) is trying to fix that, but the Japanese conservatives are a conflicted group.

They want to raise the nominal GDP while lowering the deficit. It simply doesn't work that way.

It's relatively true worldwide that banks are more risk-averse and financial regulations are tougher now.
Part of the reason the USA banks (and China's) are doing so well though is because they are less risk-averse and have fewer regulations.

2008-2016 was simply a HORRIBLE period for Europe in a relative sense. The only reason it is even recovering now is because of QE out the ass. Something the Federal Reserve started in 2008 (and hence the USA has recovered far sooner).

...

...

...

>monetarism does wor---

Man, I wish I knew how to read all these figures.

>Edward Prescott

He came to my uni to recieve some award/honour and gave a few talks a few years ago. I went to one and it was me, him and 4 other people. I was so excited to go and see a titian of economics.

I was depressingly disappointed. He had extreme dimensia or thats the vibe I got. He was all over the place. I was crushed and left early.

We are all young people who like history here. We must never forget that we will one day become history.

Housing value in Japan always decrease s over time though (with a few exceptions). Was this not the case prior to the recession? Nobody would be stupid enough to invest in a depreciating asset.

>illiterate

Increased until 1990

:O

Take the red pill, Japan has no growth because they refuse to let in hordes of immigrants

>what is Abenomics and the 3 million new foreign workers since 2012

They are showing what happens when your population starts to decline.

I really don't know why people think their in crisis however. Their GDP is falling by less than their population is falling so in terms of wealth relative to each person they are doing very well. It's not great if you hold investments in their markets, but let's be honest, we have to reach a saturation point at some time and we will all have to deal with this problem. You cannot rely on cramming more people in to drive up consumption forever.

Idk man my friend who works in Korea says it's a lot like this. Especially the drinking with the boss thing at the end.

It's important to remember, when we talk about Japanese economic stagnation, who is actually affected by it, and who isn't. (((Foreign investors))) don’t like Japan because Japan’s real estate and financial markets have been flat. That’s what’s meant by “lost decade”. It’s not that it’s been that bad for ordinary Japanese, what’s been “lost” is the opportunity for these (((foreign investors))) to make capital gains and extract more money out of Japan for themselves.

What the (((foreign investors))) wanted was for Japan to sell its people out and gin up its real estate and financial markets by things like Third World mass immigration population growth. A flat, low real estate and financial market is not necessarily a bad thing for your ordinary citizens. It keeps the costs down for your ordinary citizens to buy.

>econic crisis is because le Jooz and niggers xD
Or, you know, it's capitalism, which is so inefficient that it's continually beset by recurrent economic crises and stagnation.

There is an alternative however, which is not only more efficient, but also exhibits unremitting high rates of growth without recessions.

A publicly owned, planned economy.

gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/

I remember you. [spoiler]in the mountains[/spoiler]

I'm not even sure how people reach conclusions like this.

>communism works

It does.

Even a cursory reading of history proves that, in actual practice, in the real world, socialism (publicly owned, planned economy run by a working class state) worked phenomenally well, much better than capitalism in fact.

Socialism turned Russia,Baltics,Ukraine,Central Asia from a feudal, serf agriculture backwater in Tsarist era into the 2nd largest industrial economy on the planet, a superpower behemoth in technology and science that beat the USA in the Space Race and had unremitting economic growth with full employment, no recessions, no homelessness, free healthcare, free education through university, free national childcare, free health resorts for workers to enjoy on their guaranteed month long vacations, gender equality, elimination of racism, dirt-cheap rent (2 to 3 percent of family budget, utilities 4 to 5 percent), 16 week paid maternity leave, and all of this while the Soviets were continually under massive assault by the 14-nation invasion in the Civil War, the Nazi blitzkrieg and then the USA's threat of nuclear annihilation and Arms Race designed specifically to sabotage the Soviet economy.

Socialism in the 20th century lifted hundreds of millions of people out of the most abject poverty, illiteracy and exploitation, an achievement that has never been seen before or since.

YOU'RE FORGETTING THE PART WHERE THEY COLLAPSED AND HAD STAGNANT PRODUCTIVITY

>conveniently ignores China's massively planned and massively inefficient economy under Mao

HMMM

[COLLAPSE]

This is retarded.

Korea is not Japan.

What about how Japan grew in the first place? What's the term for it, "developmental state"? Isn't that also how South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and even China became economic powers?

I've heard there's a lot of value in THIS book, and I keep meaning to read it.

>workers are not fired, but shoved aside into tiny rooms where they are forced through isolation to resign of their own accord.

sounds comfy. i'd bring my laptop and shitpost all day

good arguments, guys

Just sneak in a cell phone and some batteries and then hide it when they come to check on you.

After a couple months they'll assume you're retarded or something and you're immune to boredom.

>collapsed
Did not collapse because of Soviet socialism, but rather because the USA specifically intensified the Arms Race and amplified the threat of nuclear annihilation against the Soviets in order to force the Soviets to divert increasingly higher percentages of their GDP, industrial output and scientific/technical productivity towards military outlays rather than to the civilian economy, which is what the Soviets would have preferred (since that's the point of socialism, the working class runs the economy and runs it to benefit the living conditions of the working class in the civilian economy).

(cont.)
The top elites in the USA capitalist class expressed deep concern as early as the mid 1970's that, if they did not do something to try to reverse or stop Soviet growth, the Soviet economy would soon overtake the US economy, making a mockery of US propaganda about the superiority of free-market, private enterprise system and thereby undermining ruling capitalist class rule in the USA, as Joe and Sally workers would wonder: "Hey, leaders. Why is Soviet economy bigger than US economy and Soviet worker has such higher economic security, quality of life and dignity than we do? If you tells us capitalism is su period and communism is evil and of satan?"

Thus, the intensified Arms Race and nuclear threats. Yet, still, this did not reverse Soviet growth or make the Soviet economy stagnant. The Soviet economy continued to steadily grow, testament to the resiliency and rugged efficiency of a publicly owned, planned economy.
That huge outside US aggression, economic warfare and direct sabotage really, combined with the US-backed coup by the Yeltsin/Gorbachev traitor clique that went against the popular wishes of the Soviet people (who wanted the Soviet Union to stay together) and bombed Parliament in Moscow, broke up the Soviet Union and sold off its public enterprises to private investors and oligarchs at favorable rates, instantly plunging many millions of people in Russia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe into poverty, unemployment, homelessness, alcoholism and drug addiction in the post-Soviet era.

Mao similarly lifted China out of feudal backwardness into a world power.

The People's Republic of China today is the 2nd largest industrial powerhouse on the planet, and will soon overtake the USA as the largest economy on the planet within the next couple decades at most, very likely within this coming decade.

*tells us capitalism is superior

I agree with a lot of what you said but a majority of the PRC's economic growth happened after the great leap forward and Mao all together.

(cont.)
Hence, guess why USA is currently so virulenty anti-China and intensifying demonization propaganda against China and surrounding China and north Korea with 400+ military bases in Jeju Island, Japan, south Korea, the Philippines etc., including nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles all aimed directly at China and north Korea, constantly threatening them with nuclear annihilation?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=a4g9Q26QkAo

If the guy wanted a good argument maybe he should have bothered to read up on basic facts on the era first. Saying it was only a lost decade to foreign investors is absurd because during the 80's/90's Japanese markets were being aggressively opened up for foreign investors/companies with the US leading the charge. If you were a foreign investor you would have plenty of reasons to be happy during that period which is why the shit they said doesn't make sense.

(cont.)

It's the similar fear by the capitalist ruling class in the US (including Trump he's not "anti-establishment" lmao so many supposed "truther" and "rebels" in USA got duped hard, compromised).

Whereas before it was fear that the Soviets would overtake the US economy and make a mockery of private property free-market capitalism, today it is the fear that People's Republic of China (still socialist btw by far most of its industry and commanding heights are still under state planning, don't let ultra-left and Trotskyite revisionists tell you otherwise) will soon overtake the US economy and make a mockery of private property free-market capitalism unless the US capitalist ruling class manages to figure out a way to stop that from happening.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
>The value of all consumer goods manufactured in 1972 in retail prices was about 118 billion rubles ($530 billion).[44] The Era of Stagnation in the mid-1970s was triggered by the Nixon Shock and aggravated by the war in Afghanistan in 1979 and led to a period of economic standstill between 1979 and 1985. Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development kept the USSR's GDP at the same level during the first half of the 1980s. The Soviet planned economy was not structured to respond adequately to the demands of the complex modern economy it had helped to forge. The massive quantities of goods produced often did not meet the needs or tastes of consumers.[45] The volume of decisions facing planners in Moscow became overwhelming. The cumbersome procedures for bureaucratic administration foreclosed the free communication and flexible response required at the enterprise level for dealing with worker alienation, innovation, customers, and suppliers. During 1975–85, corruption and data fiddling became common practice among bureaucracy to report satisfied targets and quotas thus entrenching the crisis.
>At the same time, the effects of the central planning were progressively distorted due to the rapid growth of the second economy in the Soviet Union.[24]
>While all modernized economies were rapidly moving to computerization after 1965, the USSR fell further and further behind. Moscow's decision to copy the IBM 360 of 1965 proved a decisive mistake for it locked scientists into an antiquated system they were unable to improve. They had enormous difficulties in manufacturing the necessary chips reliably and in quantity, in programming workable and efficient programs, in coordinating entirely separate operations, and in providing support to computer users.[46][47] By 1970 the U.S. had 50 times as many computers as the USSR, which lagged in most aspects of cutting-edge technology.

>One of the greatest strengths of Soviet economy was its vast supplies of oil and gas; world oil prices quadrupled in the 1973-74, and rose again in 1979-1981, making the energy sector the chief driver of the Soviet economy, and was used to cover multiple weaknesses. During this period, USSR had the lowest per-capita incomes among the other socialist countries.[49] At one point, Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin told the head of oil and gas production, "things are bad with bread. Give me 3 million tons [of oil] over the plan." Former prime minister Yegor Gaidar, an economist looking back three decades, in 2007 wrote:
>The hard currency from oil exports stopped the growing food supply crisis, increased the import of equipment and consumer goods, ensured a financial base for the arms race and the achievement of nuclear parity with the United States, and permitted the realization of such risky foreign-policy actions as the war in Afghanistan.
>Awareness of the growing crisis arose initially within the KGB which with its extensive network of informants in every region and institution had its finger on the pulse of the nation. Yuri Andropov, director of the KGB, created a secret department during the 1970s within the KGB devoted to economic analysis, and when he succeeded Brezhnev in 1982 sounded the alarm forcefully to the Soviet leadership. Andropov's remedy of increased discipline, however, proved ineffective. It was only when Andropov's protege Gorbachev assumed power that a determined, but ultimately unsuccessful, assault on the economic crisis was undertaken.
>The value of all consumer goods manufactured in 1990 in retail prices was about 459 billion rubles ($2.1 trillion).[53] But, according to CIA estimates by 1989 the size of the Soviet economy was roughly half that in the United States of America.[10] According to the European Comparison Program, administered by the U.N, the size of the Soviet Economy was 36% of that in the United States in 1990

>Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development kept the USSR's GDP at the same level during the first half of the 1980s.
Damn that is a lot of money spent on the military I have to wonder where did it all go.

I don't totally disagree with your analysis, but I think it's overly simplistic and too ideologically coded.

There was actually a 'citation needed' marker after that statement that I got rust for space. Take that as you will.

>chain-posting political arguments with no discussion of the economic critiques of socialism whatsoever. Including demand problems, lack of incentives, poor quality of goods delivered.

The piece you cite says the exact same thing in long form. Faggotry/10

>Did not collapse because of Soviet socialism

It collapsed because it failed in a competition with a free market rival according to you.

lost decade was made worse by a government determined to avoid hyper inflation.

Japan should have taken the credit rating hit and just let the yen inflate away the debts.Then work on bringing it back to 120 to 1 usd.

>your analysis
that's not one sole analysis

your responding to different anons

These posts here are a continuous stream of analysis from the same user (me)
^ all same user (me)

what I argue is not that internally there were absolutely zero problems at all and zero inefficiencies whatsoever, that's absurd and a strawman

what I argued was that the vast, overwhelming bulk of the stress on the Soviet economy was directly caused by external, rather than internal, factors (i.e. the Arms Race and nuclear annihilation threat imposed by the USA which forced the Soviets into choosing guns over butter far too often)

in essence, the Soviet state-run economy did not "collapse" out of its own "inherent failure" as is the popular, false mythology

rather, the Soviet state was "murdered" directly by the US in a campaign of economic warfare and huge direct internal sabotage that lasted the entirety of the Soviet era, from the October Revolution to the perestroika and US-backed Yeltsin coup

USSR did not enjoy a single year of largely peaceful development throughout the entirety of its existence, as opposed to the USA which was spared damage from major conflicts in the 2 World Wars through its location between the vast Atlantic and Pacific Oceans

And yet, still, despite all of this, Soviet achievements are self-evidently titanic by any astute observer of the material on-the-ground reality of situation, and the Soviet economic model out-competed, on a nation vs nation basis, every single other capitalist country on the planet with the exception of the biggest one: USA (which it was fast gaining on)

I responded to my own posts, which were just copypasta'd from wikipedia, and to the posts of your own I thought relevant, to draw the connection between your take and a more comprehensive one.

Did the United States force or trick the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan?

>overwhelming bulk of the stress on the Soviet economy was directly caused by external, rather than internal, factors

The Soviets were not blameless victims of American policy. Your characterization of them being poor peace loving people who only wished to defend themselves is an absurd re-write of history.

You are also outright lying about their economic success and quietly leaving out that their economy relied on an army of slave laborers.

Lefty pol has some delusional fools on it.

>invade Afghanistan
false

PDPA (legitimate government of Afghanistan, implemented progressive socialist land reforms and policies to curtail patriarchal/repressive traditional feudal Islamist practices etc.) repeatedly asked the Soviets for help and were turned down several times before the Soviets finally decided to enter to back up the PDPA in its defense against the CIA-backed heavily funded and supplied Taliban and other feudal Islamist forces (similar to today when Based Assad invited Russia to help defend against US/Zionist/GCC/Turkey backed ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra/FSA head-chopper sectarian terrorists destroying Syria and genociding its minority religions like Shia and Christians in order to further West's economic goal to dominate Syria).

Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was legitimate and rational, considering that the alternative was to refuse to back up their ally, watch Afghanistan become a US puppet, and then watch US install more nuclear missiles and bases inching ever closer to Soviet territory, allowing for a enormously dangerous first-strike nuclear capability that could have potentially convinced the Americans that they had enough military advantage to be able to afford to risk a limited nuclear war in order to take the coveted Soviet land and its petroleum fields and vast Siberian forests etc.

gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/women’s-rights-in-afghanistan/

Except U.S. support came AFTER the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, not before.

>PDPA (legitimate government of Afghanistan, implemented progressive socialist land reforms and policies to curtail patriarchal/repressive traditional feudal Islamist practices etc.) repeatedly asked the Soviets for help and were turned down several times before the Soviets finally decided to enter to back up the PDPA in its defense against the CIA-backed heavily funded and supplied Taliban and other feudal Islamist forces (similar to today when Based Assad invited Russia to help defend against US/Zionist/GCC/Turkey backed ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra/FSA head-chopper sectarian terrorists destroying Syria and genociding its minority religions like Shia and Christians in order to further West's economic goal to dominate Syria).

This is all basically correct.

>Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was legitimate and rational, considering that the alternative was to refuse to back up their ally, watch Afghanistan become a US puppet, and then watch US install more nuclear missiles and bases inching ever closer to Soviet territory, allowing for a enormously dangerous first-strike nuclear capability that could have potentially convinced the Americans that they had enough military advantage to be able to afford to risk a limited nuclear war in order to take the coveted Soviet land and its petroleum fields and vast Siberian forests etc.

This is all muddled half-sense, paranoia, and flat misapprehensiom of US foreign policy objectives.

>paranoia

US policy, which is really the policy of the ruling capitalist class and investors (Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller, Exxon Mobil, Bechtel etc) is to dominate all the land, labor and natural resources on the planet through pliant puppet governments that will agree to "free trade" (submission to the West).

Moreover, US policy during the Cold War specifically with regards to any nation under its sphere of influence that was open to US military bases with any semblance of a strategic location with which to target the Soviet Union (Netherlands, Turkey, etc.) was indeed used for housing nuclear missiles to point directly at the heart of Soviet territory.

This is not an "opinion" or really open to much debate, insofar as it's just simple material reality from facts on the ground and established patterns of US imperialist behavior all over the world over the past many decades.

This has gone from delusion to insanity.

autism speaks

Let's play a fun game.

Guess what 2 characteristics the following nations all have in common:
>Yugoslavia
>Iraq
>Libya
>Syria
>Belarus
>Ukraine
>Venezuela
>north Korea
>Islamic Republic of Iran
>Cuba
>Myanmar
>Zimbabwe
>China
>etc. you get the picture

1. [spoiler]All have been major targets of U.S./Western "regime change" operations or major threats of invasion or branded as "evil dictatorships" by the West[/spoiler]

2. [spoiler]All have (or had, if they were successfully "regime changed" and "freedom"ed by the West) socialist or economic nationalist governments that refuse to open up their land, labor and natural resources enough to a degree that Western investors are sufficiently satisfied with the profit-making opportunities, low-tax investment climates etc needed to expand their capital markets in that country. Gee, what a coincidence.[/spoiler]

all are 2nd and 3rd world shitholes

Not white?

>The USA is evil for looking out for their own self interest
>Glorious Soviet Russia would never do such a thing.

Ive heard an argument that Milton Freidman would support the Japanese banks buying bonds based on his thesis during the depression the federal reserve failed by not buying up the bonds of the federal government.. Do you think thats a valid argument?

nope, try again

refer to the bottom of Are you a CEO for Goldman Sachs, Bechtel, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Exxon Mobil?

Are you a multi-millionaire or billionaire with direct access to the US political system and ability to directly dictate what general course of action politicy-makers will take to secure and enlarge your personal financial interests?

No?

Then those are not "your" self-interests, the imperialist aggressions the USA as a political entity takes all over the planet against many other nations. Nor are they the self-interests of the general population of the USA, particularly not of its working class.

what real estate bubble

the war bill's coming

gowans.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/for-whom-the-war-bill-tolls/

and if you work (particularly if you work for a wage), then guess what?

that's right

you're paying for it

Soviet power being expanded across the globe was not in the American peoples interest. The US government, like all other governments looks out for their own people. That is their job.

Your assertion that the US government is controlled by corporations is based upon what? A Micheal Moore movie?

I'm self-employed and make 67k after taxes and everything around such as part of it into a pension fund is paid for, why the fuck should I care about the working class?

I'm Canadian, so I am already paying out the ass for whatever bullshit they can dream up to tax me on next and our military is a joke.

Soviet power expanding across the globe objectively was a positive in the American peoples interest.

The social democratic concessions that capital made to the workers in USA (social security, unions, 8-hour day etc, concessions which are being rescinded by capital now btw) were either implemented or maintained by capital throughout the Cold War largely because of the threat of the Soviet counter-example and the need for capital to keep the US working rabble satisfied to prevent them from demanding more of their just due, as was afforded Soviet workers with their ample social guarantees (free education, healthcare, childcare, paid maternity leave, free health resorts etc)

gowans.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/social-democracy-soviet-socialism-and-the-bottom-99-percent/

>US government, like all other governments
All governments are the dictatorship of a class.
As such, the US government does not "look out for its people" as a whole, in the aggregate, but rather a specific class of people in its population, namely the small minority capitalist investor class who have the economic means to dictate policy-making to their direct advantages.

gowans.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/whose-rights/

(cont.)

>based upon what? A Michael Moore movie?

Based upon the extensively well-documented interlocking between the highest levels of policy-making (particularly though not exclusively Council of Foreign Relations and similar powerful corporate think tanks), the titans of corporate and investor class in the USA and how they have a revolving door between careers in government, where politicians work for capitalist class interests, and careers in the corporate world after the political careers, where the same corporations that the politicians helped out with favorable policy while they were in office just so happen to offer the politicians post-political career jobs on the boards of major corporations.

gowans.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/aspiring-to-rule-the-world-us-capital-and-the-battle-for-syria/

Because you're going to be bringing home significantly less than 67k when those taxes go up, as the capitalist-empire government asks you to pay the Pied Piper for its own multi-trillion dollar expenses accrued through its global foreign aggressions.

Same goes for you

Both of you could benefit from the following analyses, which focus on Canada, but apply highly similarly to the US context as well with some tweaks

gowans.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/canadian-foreign-policy-and-why-it-matters-to-workers/