"The Rich Thrive and Everyone Else Struggles"

"The labor share is a symptom of worker anxiety, of course, not the cause. But as a symptom it speaks volumes. It reflects growing wealth inequality, a tax system that comes down hard on wages but gives capital earnings a pass, an explosive growth in corporate profits and a shift of employment from large-scale manufacturing to gig-provided services."

At the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik writes that "labor's share of the economy is at a record low."

"There's a Reason 'Democratic' Is There at the Front of the Label"

"One of the ironies of this is that as terms developed over the first half of the 20th century, 'socialism' (in the sense of socialist parties and so forth) generally became self-identified as socialist over and against the anti-democratic elements of communism which, of course, also claimed the socialist label. Old news for people who know this history but a lot of the most intense anti-communists were socialists, though that can seem odd to those outside these sectarian debates. Indeed, the DSA, which Michael Harrington helped found in 1982, was at the forefront of that element of socialist politics."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo warns against "[t]his vanguard, Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party claptrap" in the Democratic Socialists of America.

And Joshua Zeitz at The Bulwark asks, "[d]oes the DSA genuinely admire the social-democratic European model?"  

"What Happens When You Combine Free Trade, Shrinking Unions, Wall Street Bailouts, Growing Corporate Monopoly Power, and the Abandonment of Campaign Finance Reform?"

"You get an economy favoring the wealthy and a political system favoring the powerful, while workers without college degrees suffer declining real wages and dwindling job security."

Robert Reich at The Guardian says that "[w]e are finally witnessing the decline of corporate Democrats."

"And They Must See This as Not Three Fights but One"

"Thus will changing the paradigm be the work of many years. Can the Democrats, and the people in their orbit, do it? I think they can. They have popular policies, but they have to remove those policies from their silos and connect them to values and offer people a vision for themselves as individuals and for society at large, a vision that stirs people's souls as Americans. They have to connect their economic ideas to ideals that Americans cherish—democracy and freedom. You can't get much more American than democracy and freedom. They are core to our national project. And they are not separate from economic justice. They are inseparable. It is up to the Democrats to defend all three."

In 2022, The New Republic ran an excerpt from Michael Tomansky's The Middle Out: The Rise of Progressive Economics and a Return to Shared Prosperity.

"Marx in the Twenty-First Century"

"This is not to say that Marx thought that industrialization, mechanization, or globalization were bad things. He was no Luddite. His concern was the disconnect between profits and human need: Much like today's industrial regions, the slums of nineteenth-century Manchester that Marx observed were filled with workers who were exhausted, unhealthy, and miserable while the factory owners dined on beef bourguignon and claret in their mansions. The factories these days just happen to be in Shenzhen or Dhaka, not the other side of town. Unlike the British machine wreckers of a generation before, Marx saw no way to stuff the technological genie back into the bottle. New tools must be utilized for the greatest good: Instead of getting rid of the factories, the public should take ownership of them."

Max Holleran at The New Republic reviews David Harvey's The Story of Capital: What Everyone Should Know About How Capital Works.

"The Real Story of Trump's Presidency"

"But the Democrats will almost certainly retake one, if not both, chambers of Congress in the fall. When they do, their biggest task will be to restrain this administration—and a huge part of that will involve investigating this corruption. But to do that effectively, they must weave these scandals into a larger narrative, not just pick one or two that seem particularly odious or emblematic. This should be easy. The Democrats will spend the fall campaigning primarily on what has been the biggest issue of the post-pandemic era: the affordability crisis. Prices are rising, real wages are going down, and Americans are anxious and pissed off. While many voters are struggling to get by, one man is doing better than ever. He made more than $2 billion last year alone. And he did it by selling the highest, most sacred office in the land."

Alex Shephard at The New Republic calls Donald Trump "the most corrupt politician in American history."

Now or Never

"Having staged a remarkably successful coup within Britain’s ruling Labour Party in response to outgoing leader Keir Starmer's chronic irresolution on virtually all issues, Burnham has calculated that he needs to appear decisive and pragmatic straight out of the box. The former Manchester mayor comes off as a gregarious, upbeat fellow with an admittedly nerdy overlay. If he's not exactly John F. Kennedy, he clearly outdoes Starmer on charisma (not a high bar). He begins with a considerable reservoir of goodwill, but whether improved vibes can correct the Labour government's toxic drift remains to be seen."

Andrew O'Hehir at Salon reacts to Andy Burnham becoming the latest UK prime minister.

As does Larry Elliot at The Guardian.

"The United States Has Perhaps Done Worse Than Gaining Nothing"

"Iran has suffered significant damage from U.S. and Israeli military action. But as I and others warned at the outset, killing people and bombing things do not by themselves produce victory. The reality is that the war will close with the regime in Tehran intact and in the grip of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Strait of Hormuz will remain under the threat of Iranian attacks; Iran will continue to possess significant drone and missile stocks; the regime will maintain the capability to be a state sponsor of terror; and many sanctions will be lifted and billions of dollars in unfrozen assets will flow to Iran. In other words, the Iranians have achieved their key strategic aims—regime survival above all—while the Americans have achieved none of their own."

Tom Nichols at The Atlantic writes that "the United States has been defeated."

"Any Billionaires Who Pay the Tax Will Earn It Back in Just a Few Months"

"Billionaires' taxes amount to zero. So long as they don't sell any of the shares that made them rich, they're not actually forced to pay taxes on the skyrocketing value of those shares. A 'wealth tax' worthy of the name would ensure they pay the same as the rest of us, around 40%. That would not prevent them from amassing fortunes. Their $1 million would still grow to $190 million over 20 years—which is colossal, just not as colossal as $3.3 billion."

Stephen Land at the Los Angeles Times explains "[w]hy billionaires shouldn't fuss over the wealth tax."

And Jonathan Last at The Bulwark writes, "As the saying goes: Capitalism is too important to be left to the capitalists."

"What Went Wrong?"

"Some portion of the book's confusion about capitalism, and its author's refusal or inability to stand by its claims about capitalism, is symptomatic and shared. In 2014, Seth Rockman, one of Beckert's colleagues in the new history of capitalism, announced that the field had 'minimal investment in a fixed or theoretical definition of capitalism.' That was a virtue, Rockman claimed, not a vice. If they 'let capitalism float as a placeholder,' scholars would be freed to do 'the empirical work of discovery' and find 'ground-level evidence of a system in operation.' Twelve years—and 1,325 pages—later, free time is over, and judging by the results in hand, scholars of the new history of capitalism have no more sense of a system now than when they began." 

Corey Robin at The Nation reviews Sven Beckert's Capitalism: A Global History.

"The Economic Mess We're in Is Entirely of Trump's Own Doing"

"It always sounds a bit earnest to deplore corruption, but one of the practical reasons for eschewing corruption is because at best it acts like an invisible tax on economic growth. At worst, it corrodes the economic engine to the point that it doesn't properly function any longer. Before Trump, the United States was a world leader in combatting corporate and political corruption abroad for the unapologetically realpolitik reason that American companies could win on a level playing field. Under Trump II, the DOJ has explicitly stopped enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and we're now in a grubby race to the bottom.

David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo writes that "[n]ot only are Trump's second term attacks on economic growth hard to reverse, let alone quickly, they're deeply wired into who he is and what he’s about."

"They Sense That Behind Them Is the Same Old Democratic Party with the Same Old Elites and the Same Old Cultural Priorities"

"Working-class voters are acutely aware that the professional-dominated educated upper middle class who occupy positions of administrative and cultural power is overwhelmingly Democratic. For the working class, the professional upper middle class may not be the super-rich but they are elites just the same. These voters harbor deep resentment toward the cultural gatekeepers who they feel are telling them how to live their lives, even what to think and say, and incidentally are living a great deal more comfortably than they are."

Ruy Teixeira at The Liberal Patriot argues that Democratic candidates "need a strong dose of cultural populism" along with economic populism.

"So Why Is American Economic Confidence at Its Lowest Point in More Than a Decade?"

"The answer lies in a mix of economic reality and human psychology. On the reality side, Americans are not at all pleased with the high cost of living, particularly for the 'hard' goods and services in modern life, including housing, energy, health care, childcare, education, household goods, and things such as car payments, insurance, and maintenance. Even with decent wages and income and prospective tax cuts, working- and middle-class families do not feel particularly solid when they open their banking apps. A middle-class life that once seemed attainable and sustainable seems out of reach to many younger people and increasingly precarious for more established older Americans. Cheap televisions, ubiquitous phones, endless entertainment, and fast internet won't make up for people's inability to pay their health care premiums or save enough for a down payment on a home or retirement."

John Halpin at The Liberal Patriot argues that "the ideological faction or leader who figures out this economic reality first—and responds genuinely and empathetically to Americans' psychological worries about their finances—will be well positioned for success, at least temporarily."

"That's Not Just an Economic Issue. That's Stability Risk"

"The country is living in a K-shaped economy: two diverging roads, where outcomes for one group accelerate upward while outcomes for another flatten–or quietly deteriorate. The top half is compounding: stable employment, rising asset values, and the confidence that comes from having options. The bottom half is exposed: high sensitivity to inflation, fragile cash flow, rising credit stress, and a feeling that even doing everything 'right' isn't enough."

Josh Tanenbaum at Fortune warns of an America "where the top gets insulated enough to become careless, the bottom gets desperate enough to become combustible, and the middle loses belief that effort translates into progress."

"Talent Still Calls California Home"

"Recent comparisons to Detroit misunderstand what makes each city remarkable. The Motor City's decline was largely due to companies offshoring innovation to cheaper factories abroad. Los Angeles' challenge is the opposite: an overabundance of innovation that is decentralizing faster than anyone expected. The industry is not dying; it is diversifying."

In a 2025 Los Angeles Times article, Rachel Zaslansky Sheer and Lori Zuker Briller discuss Hollywood as a place and as an industry.

"Nobody Cared"

"It is also a grim judgment on the entire political system. The Supreme Court has effectively rendered the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution moot. Republicans are completely in thrall to Trump and unwilling to exercise the kind of patriotism their party showed when leaders of the GOP broke with Richard Nixon over his crimes. Democrats, with some noble exceptions such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have been notably reluctant to make corruption an issue, since it seems to have little political traction."

Jeet Heer at The Nation describes Donald Trump "as perhaps the most corrupt elected official in human history."

"The Public Wants to See Something Bold"

"It's an argument that began in the progressive wing but is increasingly finding purchase across the party: Be proudly, loudly, without reservations, anti-AI. It's not enough, these pollsters, consultants and elected officials say, to caution, minimally regulate and signal a friendly stance toward tech companies building AI. There is a massive, growing opportunity for Democrats to tap into rising anxiety, fear and anger about the havoc AI could wreak in people's lives, they say, on issues from energy affordability to large-scale job losses, and channel it toward a populist movement—and not doing it, or not doing it strongly enough, will hurt the party."

Calder McHugh at Politico discusses options for Democrats regarding the politics of technology.

"Welcome to the Death of Higher Education"

"The real tragedy isn't that students use ChatGPT to do their course work. It's that universities are teaching everyone—students, faculty, administrators—to stop thinking. We're outsourcing discernment. Students graduate fluent in prompting, but illiterate in judgment; faculty teach but aren't allowed the freedom to educate; and universities, eager to appear innovative, dismantle the very practices that made them worthy of the name. We are approaching educational bankruptcy: degrees without learning, teaching without understanding, institutions without purpose."

Ronald Purser at Current Affairs says that "AI is Destroying the University and Learning Itself."

"Culture as a Sort of Terroir"

"Making art with lasting meaning requires resisting the pull of instant exposure and early buyouts. We must think through ways to encourage artists to disappear into their own worlds for a while, developing ideas away from corporate influence and assimilation. Not everyone will have the discipline or capacity for this, but those who do or can will shape the future. And the least that critics and fans can do is give them esteem—when justified—for attempting to move culture forward, instead of ignoring them as marginal, castigating them as pretentious, or belittling their view counts. The past 25 years have taught us that the contemporary economy and media will not prioritize creative invention. The question is: Will you?"

The Atlantic runs an "article has been adapted from W. David Marx's new book, Blank Space: A Cultural History of the Twenty-First Century."

"A Cynical Means for the Affluent to Transfer Ever More Wealth From the Rest of Society to Themselves"

"In private equity, there is a saying that goes: 'Every day you're not selling, you're buying.' It means that as long as you hold on to a company or some other asset without profiting from it, you're betting on its longer term success. Behind it is a principle that is widespread on Wall Street: that there are only two sides to every trade--the winner and the loser. The same might be said about society's relationship to private equity: every day we're not regulating it, we're letting it regulate us. We're letting it take over our cells and replicate aggressively. It's clear who's on the winning side of that bargain."

In a 2024 Guardian article, Alex Blasdel explores the world of private equity.