The Trump Presidency

[RainbowSingularity]

The increase in prices is not a wash for the low paid - their wages increase faster than the prices, unless political machination redistributes their extra earnings upward to the rich (as in the US since the 1980s).
And if it leads to greater productivity of the low paid, a better life, as is common, it would not be a wash for the legitimate capitalist businessman either - the ones not embezzling. They would have more freedom, sacrifice less of their privacy and personal liberty, remain on the gain side of the return to capital curve.

but they are driven by the need to take things away from others regardless of what they have.

 

[Quantum Quack]

News here is that the Trump administration has flatly refused to co-operate with the requirements of Congress.
It is staggering when you think on it. The makings of a net flix drama, where the President holds his own administration hostage because he fears his day of reckoning is on the door.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

News here is that the Trump administration has flatly refused to co-operate with the requirements of Congress.
It is staggering when you think on it. The makings of a net flix drama, where the President holds his own administration hostage because he fears his day of reckoning is on the door.

I remember the days when the Cabinet didn't swear fealty to the current occupant of the White House.

 

[Schmelzer]

We now have the ill advised withdrawal of USA troops from Syria.

To talk about a withdrawal of US occupation troops from Syria we can talk only if it really starts. Even better if it really ends, with the last US occupant leaving Syria. Up to this moment, these are empty promises.

Given that you name it "ill-advised" you support US occupation of foreign countries without any base in international law? Given that essentially the only aim is to steal oil, you support such robbery?

Here in Australia we see yet another example of USA betrayal of allies...

The US does not have any allies it can betray. It has only vassals. They have to abide by the commands of the US but have no base to demand anything from US.

Why he would order this at this point in his flame war over impeachment may be the because he fears his capacity to exec. order anything other than hamburgers and fries is about to end and a longer term agenda needs to be completed before that happens. If that is the case then we can expect some more rather extraordinary exec. orders, pardons, etc shortly.

The decision to side with Erdogan in the conflict between Erdogan and the Kurds is a quite reasonable one.

Think about the alternative: A completely illegal "Kurdistan", occupied by the US, which is based economically on stealing oil in Arab territories occupied by the US-paid Kurdish forces, which will be the target of all four neighbors (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria) which will all pay everybody to kill Kurds but even better US soldiers as much as possible once this part of the game starts. Expect at that time none of the neighbors will open its airspace for US airforce, three of them having modern Russian air-defense and all of them have any right to shot US airplanes if they appear without permission over their territory. The Turks leaving the NATO, given this open military conflict with the US.

 

[iceaura]

The decision to side with Erdogan in the conflict between Erdogan and the Kurds is a quite reasonable one.

From the viewpoint of a cynical fascist with no interest in the wellbeing of the United States, sure.

It also requires that one take Trump's assertions seriously, as if they had meaning and intent and a role in a larger body of ideological thought and political enterprise. You have been doing that all along, for some reason.

Trump has no knowledge and no interest in any conflicts between Erdogan and the Kurds. He doesn't know who the Kurds are. He isn't "siding" with anyone in that conflict. Whatever his motives are - my wife thinks Erdogan has obtained blackmail information on Trump, either from past dealings (Flynn, etc) or from Putin, and that makes sense (although I think it unnecessary and overcomplicated) - they have nothing to do with a larger geopolitical governing strategy of Trump's. He doesn't have one.

The US does not have any allies it can betray. It has only vassals.

It used to have allies, despite its bad behavior, and was better off for having them. The internal rise of fascism and its takeover of a major political Party has resulted in their betrayal by the US, with predictable consequences - but that can be changed.

Fascists do not govern well. Only an enemy of the US would welcome a fascist government in the US - and even then, only if they underestimated the consequences.

To talk about a withdrawal of US occupation troops from Syria we can talk only if it really starts. Even better if it really ends, with the last US occupant leaving Syria. Up to this moment, these are empty promises.

So you seem to have finally recognized that reality is not found in Trump's rhetorical output. But why so late?

 

[Schmelzer]

From the viewpoint of a cynical fascist with no interest in the wellbeing of the United States, sure.

From the point of view of an angel caring only about the wellbeing of the US, even more. It makes no sense for American soldiers to die in Syria for creating a Kurdish colonial state. (It would have to be a US base with some Kurds living around it, else it could not survive.)

If Trump has a geopolitical strategy or not is quite irrelevant. All that matters is that he does not follow the globalist strategy. This is already sufficient to destroy many of its assets.

It used to have allies, despite its bad behavior, and was better off for having them.

Long ago, WW II times. Ok, with some reservation one can count the West during the Cold War as allies.

Fascists do not govern well. Only an enemy of the US would welcome a fascist government in the US - and even then, only if they underestimated the consequences.

Fascism in the US is bipartisan. The globalist version of fascism which rules the Dems is even more dangerous.

I'm actually reading

Mearsheimer, J.J. (2018). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale Univ Press.

Quite interesting. He names the globalists "liberal hegemonists" and your fascists "nationalist". The book nicely explains the failure of the globalist project.

So you seem to have finally recognized that reality is not found in Trump's rhetorical output. But why so late?

LOL. You love to distort your opponents so much that you even invent some trust in Trump's rhetorical output.

 

[iceaura]

You love to distort your opponents so much that you even invent some trust in Trump's rhetorical output.

I just read your posts, in which you accept Trump's rhetorical output as informative of his political stance and governing policies, and repost the associated Republican media feed as if it were your own thinking.
It doesn't matter what you think you trust.

Fascism in the US is bipartisan.

Not equivalently. It is the governing ideology of the Republican Party, but not the Democratic Party.

The globalist version of fascism which rules the Dems is even more dangerous

The "globalism" you decry is also disproportionately Republican since Reagan. It's part of the US rightwing corporate capitalist agenda, and that's been invested in the Republican Party for a generation now.
"Globalist fascism" is just you playing with words you don't understand.
You are unable to recognize fascism in real life, for example - you even missed it in Trump's rise to power.

It makes no sense for American soldiers to die in Syria for creating a Kurdish colonial state.

So?

Quite interesting. He names the globalists "liberal hegemonists" and your fascists "nationalist". The book nicely explains the failure of the globalist project.

My fascists, like most others, are not nationalists in reality - their nationalism exists only in the propaganda feeds used to manipulate their voting base. Their political agenda includes global expansion of corporate capitalist "hegemony", by military force if necessary. As Trump put it, the Iraq War would have been ok if "we" (American corporations) had seized the oil (he claims we didn't).

That's as far as fascistic "nationalism" goes in physical fact - the ostensible national identity of the profiting corporations. And as anyone with sense knows, international corporate capitalists are only "nationalist" in the sense of needing somebody's army to back their endeavors. Exxon would throw the American people under a bus in a heartbeat, if it boosted their bottom line. A serious intellectual is supposed to know that.

So clearly either the book, you, or both, is screwed up in some way.

I'm betting it's both:
You are easily confused about globalism, especially when capitalist corporations are calling the shots, and there's no way you could distinguish a "liberal hegemonist" from any other liberal, or defend yourself against the kind of rhetorical manipulations we have seen emerge from the U of Chicago's economics and political science departments in recent decades.
Meanwhile Mearsheimer has a long history of the sort of "realism" that overlooks the role and influence of corporate economic power (your weak spot, as well) - the Iraq War was not launched by "liberal hegemonists" or anything liberal, and it was not fought to spread liberal democratic government to Iraq (the original plan was to install a strongman, as usual).
The Bush administration and its supporting Republican Congress was not liberal, "hegemonist" or any other kind.
In bigger words:
https://www.academia.edu/39776021/M...ale_University_Press_328_pp._30.00_Hardcover_

 

[Schmelzer]

After disposing of the usual nonsense, not much remains:

Meanwhile Mearsheimer has a long history of the sort of "realism" that overlooks the role and influence of corporate economic power (your weak spot, as well) - the Iraq War was not launched by "liberal hegemonists" or anything liberal, and it was not fought to spread liberal democratic government to Iraq (the original plan was to install a strongman, as usual).
The Bush administration and its supporting Republican Congress was not liberal, "hegemonist" or any other kind.
In bigger words:
https://www.academia.edu/39776021/M...ale_University_Press_328_pp._30.00_Hardcover_

That you don't like this book is what I have expected. As you, as the author of the text you have linked don't understand a key point about learning from history. The point is that one can only learn from history if one ignores parts of it, namely all those parts which the proponents of a particular ideology like to use as excuses. Yes, for all the socialist/communist countries one can easily find particular excuses, so that what they have build was not real socialism/communism but some distortion of it, the next time we will make it better. And in a similar way the liberal globalists will find excuses that the liberal world rule has not been established. Like corporations, or some complexities, or Rep fascism or so. What Mearsheimer shows is that liberal hegemony is in itself the problem. There will be no more successful second attempt to establish a liberal world government, this project is doomed from the start. And even if it succeeds to conquer the world, it will be no longer liberal in any sense.

You seem to think that if the Bush administration would have been liberal, everything would be fine in Iraq and it would be a democracy now. Not? If not, then your remark is simply irrelevant. If yes, then better read the book and think about it.

 

[iceaura]

That you don't like this book is what I have expected.

Ignorance speaks.
In fact, I neither like nor dislike that book. I haven't read it. I do know something about it, including a couple of flaws in its intellectual background, but all books have flaws - even likable ones. I have "liked" (learned from) several book length takedowns of US warmongers flying the flag of "spreading democracy" - I very much dislike US warmongers, even the honest ones - so I might very well like your book, despite its shallow and fundamentally deceptive intellectual base. I can forgive a lot in anyone honestly trying to prevent American warmaking.

That is information for you, about me - can you learn?

The point is that one can only learn from history if one ignores parts of it, namely all those parts which the proponents of a particular ideology like to use as excuses

You have no idea what to ignore, in the case of the US. That's partly because you cannot identify particular ideologies or their proponents in US politics, and partly because you lack knowledge of US physical and historical facts - which you need to identify "excuses".
That's how you ended up embarrassing yourself with "deep state" bs, and stuff like this:

You seem to think that if the Bush administration would have been liberal, everything would be fine in Iraq and it would be a democracy now.

I'm a left libertarian, as you should know by now. We don't think - or post - like that, at all, ever.
So: I don't seem anything like that to anyone who knows what they are talking about. Not even close.

That's a pretty revealing, flagrant, slapstick error. And predicted:
As noted above, you cannot separate US lefties and liberals from the "liberal hegemonists" of your book. I knew you couldn't do it because, like the voting base of the Republican Party, you lack a source of information - at least, your posting identity here does.
So you end up thinking the invasion of Iraq and other military coercions would be supported by US lefties and liberals, as if US lefties and liberals in general thought that liberal democratic government could be imposed or spread by military force. You even labeled W's War a "bipartisan" effort supported by US liberals. Why? Because you know less than nothing about US politics. Literally - your information status is negative, less than zero, because you sucker for disinformation on top of rejecting information.

And in a similar way the liberal globalists will find excuses that the liberal world rule has not been established.

On this forum the liberals aren't globalist and the globalists aren't liberal. The US government - including its military - has not been controlled by liberals of any kind since Reagan's election. US globalism is largely corporate capitalist ("conservative"), especially the military coercion and world government aspects. Meanwhile, people like me recognize "liberal world government" as one of the crackpot conspiracy theories being thrown around by the media handlers of the Republican voting base - the low information voters. It used to be "Jewish world government", "Communist world government" (where it could have made sense, but didn't), etc, then the UN got roped in and fitted with black helicopters, and by now we see even the AGW researchers described as "liberal globalist" minions.

Basically, anyone opposed to the international coordination and global dominance of capitalist corporate power, anyone recommending that local governments regulate and curb and tax corporations according to their own best interests, will occasionally be labeled a "liberal globalist" or "world government" advocate or the like by the US rightwing corporate media feed.

Silly, sure, but seriously consequential - there's no getting through to the core disinformed. And there are a lot of them - they have the Presidency, as well as most of Congress and the Supreme Court.

The problem isn't Trump. Trump is just another Republican, as typical as Reagan and Bush and W.

Trump = Republican, Republican = Trump.

 

[Schmelzer]

I'm a left libertarian, as you should know by now. We don't think - or post - like that, at all, ever.
So: I don't seem anything like that to anyone who knows what they are talking about. Not even close.

In this case, what was the point of your "The Bush administration and its supporting Republican Congress was not liberal, "hegemonist" or any other kind"? The natural assumption is that a liberal hegemonist one would have been somehow different. If you think that a liberal hegemonist intervention would have the same horrible effect, then there was no point in this remark, except stupid nitpicking.

So you end up thinking the invasion of Iraq and other military coercions would be supported by US lefties and liberals, as if US lefties and liberals in general thought that liberal democratic government could be imposed or spread by military force. You even labeled W's War a "bipartisan" effort supported by US liberals. Why?

Because there are yet US troops as in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, despite 8 years of Obama ruling the US. So, both wars are bipartisan wars.

On this forum the liberals aren't globalist and the globalists aren't liberal. The US government - including its military - has not been controlled by liberals of any kind since Reagan's election. US globalism is largely corporate capitalist ("conservative"), especially the military coercion and world government aspects.

If you don't name the Dems liberals, your choice. I don't have to care about your personal choices. When I say "bipartisan", I mean supported by Reps and Dems. I do not care about "left-libertarians" or whatever liberals if they don't have political power in the US. The globalists have that political power, so I care about them, these guys are dangerous for the world.

Meanwhile, people like me recognize "liberal world government" as one of the crackpot conspiracy theories being thrown around by the media handlers of the Republican voting base - the low information voters. It used to be "Jewish world government", "Communist world government" (where it could have made sense, but didn't), etc, then the UN got roped in and fitted with black helicopters, and by now we see even the AGW researchers described as "liberal globalist" minions.

Whatever, I prefer not to have globalists in power positions of the US. Too dangerous. I would be happy if this appears to be a paranoid conspiracy. But your namecalling is unfortunately not an argument for this.

 

[iceaura]

Whatever, I prefer not to have globalists in power positions of the US

And yet you supported Trump.

If you don't name the Dems liberals, your choice.

No. The dictionary's choice. Words have meanings, in my life. Many Dems are authoritarian rightwing conservatives, not liberals.

When I say "bipartisan", I mean supported by Reps and Dems.

You don't know what is and is not supported by Reps and Dems, in general. You use the term more or less at random. And you are unable to distinguish advocacy and agency from reluctant or coerced cooperation, so you use "supported" more or less at random as well. And you are unable to distinguish rightwing conservative Dems from leftwing liberal ones, or majority Dems from minority factions - so your use of "Dems" is meaningless.

I do not care about "left-libertarians" or whatever liberals if they don't have political power in the US.

And you don't know if they do, or who they are. So you post idiocy in ignorance.

Because there are yet US troops as in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, despite 8 years of Obama ruling the US. So, both wars are bipartisan wars.

Silly boy.

Obama never ruled the US, and reduced the military forces in in Iraq considerably despite solid opposition from the Republican Congress and the military/industrial complex. He also restored control of that military to the US military command - thereby making it easier to track and curb and defund and reduce - again with no Republican cooperation whatsoever.

The natural assumption is that a liberal hegemonist one would have been somehow different.

Nothing natural about that bs. Your term "liberal hegemonist" has no clear meaning - whom are you talking about?
A liberal, or even just a Democratic, administration would have been very different - No military invasion of Iraq, for starters. The invasion of Iraq was a strictly Republican Party endeavor - nobody else would have done it.

I would be happy if this appears to be a paranoid conspiracy.

It isn't a paranoid conspiracy about rightwing corporate global interests, or the fascist takeover of the Republican Party and its global agenda. It's just policy, in that crowd.
It's the "liberal world government" that's a goofy conspiracy. Those guys are not liberals, "hegemonist" or any other kind.

You are incapable of making true statements about US politics, because you don't know anything about them.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

how many American deaths will he be responsible for in northern Syria ?

Turkey got the war they wanted
now they have the s400
and f16s
...

obliviously looking at it from a westerners perspective is probably non relevant to their regional reality.

Largest and only Muslim Capitalist country with a socialist government in the world ?

 

[Schmelzer]

And yet you supported Trump.

That's why I supported Trump.

No. The dictionary's choice. Words have meanings, in my life. Many Dems are authoritarian rightwing conservatives, not liberals.

In this case, one cannot use the word "liberal" in the US context at all, because it predictably leads to misunderstandings.

You don't know what is and is not supported by Reps and Dems, in general. You use the term more or less at random. And you are unable to distinguish advocacy and agency from reluctant or coerced cooperation, so you use "supported" more or less at random as well. And you are unable to distinguish rightwing conservative Dems from leftwing liberal ones, or majority Dems from minority factions - so your use of "Dems" is meaningless.

My use of Dems and Reps has a well-defined meaning, I use it to name each of the two parties as a whole. Your excuses for supporting Dems given the support of the Dem party as a whole those wars ("coerced cooperation", various factions) are irrelevant for me. Obviously, the disagreement between the factions, as well as with those who "coerce" them to "cooperate" with something they hate, are not strong enough for splitting the Dems into parts. Thus, even if this may be important for you, for foreigners it is irrelevant.

Obama never ruled the US, and reduced the military forces in in Iraq considerably despite solid opposition from the Republican Congress and the military/industrial complex.

Then Trump never ruled too. So why you care at all about getting rid of him? Then, how you name the ruler? The parties (Dems or Reps) you have described as essentially irrelevant in this post, objecting even against my naming one of them "Dems" instead of specifying particular factions. The "deep state" comes to mind, but you object all the time if I use this term too. The big corporations? Ok, but then why care about US internal politics and elections at all, winning elections changes nothing in the rule of Big Corporations, is unable to stop wars? A combination of all of them? Fine, but this is what is named "deep state".

He also restored control of that military to the US military command - thereby making it easier to track and curb and defund and reduce - again with no Republican cooperation whatsoever.

And started all of his own wars using not the military, but using paid criminal, fascist, jihadist gangs, with the only control, if there is control at all, by the CIA. Which makes it close to impossible to track, curb and defund all this.

Nothing natural about that bs. Your term "liberal hegemonist" has no clear meaning - whom are you talking about?

The clear enough meaning is given in the book I'm talking about.

A liberal, or even just a Democratic, administration would have been very different - No military invasion of Iraq, for starters. The invasion of Iraq was a strictly Republican Party endeavor - nobody else would have done it.

Except that there was also a Dem majority in the Senate in favor of this war. And solid 39.2% in the House of Representatives. Poor Dems coerced to cooperate, I guess. More plausibly, the Dems would have preferred instead to start a color revolution supporting Al Qaida or something like this, as they have done later in Libya and Syria.

 

[iceaura]

Except that there was also a Dem majority in the Senate in favor of this war.

No, there was not.

The clear enough meaning is given in the book I'm talking about.

But not in your posting.

And started all of his own wars using not the military, but using paid criminal, fascist, jihadist gangs, with the only control, if there is control at all, by the CIA.

So he did not actually start wars, then?

In this case, one cannot use the word "liberal" in the US context at all, because it predictably leads to misunderstandings.

People who know waht they are talking about will not misunderstand.
You can't use the term, because you are posting propaganda feeds that have as part of their purpose the destruction of meaning in the term. All your usage is misusage, as designed and intended by the professionals involved.

My use of Dems and Reps has a well-defined meaning, I use it to name each of the two parties as a whole.

You don't know what the Parties as a whole are.
The Democrats as a whole, for example, are not liberals. Only some of them are.

That's why I supported Trump

Of course. Demonstrating your ignorance once again.

Ok, but then why care about US internal politics and elections at all, winning elections changes nothing in the rule of Big Corporations, is unable to stop wars?

The Dems winning the White House in 2000 would have prevented the Iraq War.

Then Trump never ruled too. So why you care at all about getting rid of him?

As noted, you are completely ignorant of US politics - you don't even know what the President does.

Poor Dems coerced to cooperate, I guess.

Mostly, yep. As you would know if you knew anything.

More plausibly, the Dems would have preferred instead to start a color revolution supporting Al Qaida or something like this, as they have done later in Libya and Syria.

They would not have invaded Iraq. That disaster would never have happened. A majority of them even put their jobs and seats at risk by publicly refusing to support the US President in his efforts to launch that war.

The Iraq War was a Republican Party war - it was not bipartisan, as you tried to claim. It was organized and launched by Republicans and nobody else.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I remember the days when the Cabinet didn't swear fealty to the current occupant of the White House.

one would think such normalcy would be a corner stone of those whom preach there should not be religious rule of the people.

would i prefer(no one gets to chose except those soo rich they can afford to live above it) a christian dictator or a Muslim dictator or a Hindu dictator or fascist autocratic oligarchy masquerading as a socialistic mixed market economy(a government that was anti all religion but was overt like georgre orwell and had capital punishment for almost every concept of crime and used to oppress the masses[capitalist/communist/socialist/fascist mixed market with life imprisonment for being a member of a religion and death penalty if caught preaching]) ...
well, i am not a member of a church
i do not preach religion
so im safe with such a simple obvious law yes ?
this is the position of the rich elitist quasi christian right in the usa
equally in some other muslim countrys where there is open bold faced theft of the peoples money to build their own houses and companys.


what modern leaders would publicly put their hand up and choose to live in a stalin/mau/hitler/poll pot etc... like world ?
none unless they got to be stalin.

unlike some countrys, in the usa if you polled all the people
the vast majority would disagree with death penaltys for blasphemy
or for preaching a different religion.

unfortunately rule of the dollar defines everything is acceptable if your the only facist in the room

it is interesting to see people simply and quite obviously ignore the shades of liberalism that under pin the very core aspects of modern humanity and civility.

but ... classicist elitism(which always fosters psychopathy & normalises class systems of anti-empathy) which believes it is entitled to live above the law of the common people is as real as the sun & moon
it is a symptomatic condition of the human animal when not directly countered through education, laws,regulations & culture.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, there was not.

This source claims 29:21 among the Dems. What are your sources?

But not in your posting.

You think I have to copypaste from the book? Read it yourself.

So he did not actually start wars, then?

Why should I guess if those wars were started by Obama or the deep state? These are internals and any guesses from outside smack of conspiracy theories. The key remains: If Dems are presidents, wars are started as usual. Electing a Dem as a president does not prevent wars.

They would not have invaded Iraq. That disaster would never have happened. A majority of them even put their jobs and seats at risk by publicly refusing to support the US President in his efforts to launch that war.

So what would be the point of electing such losers unable to stand for their political beliefs (as far as they had some)?

 

[Vociferous]

The increase in prices is not a wash for the low paid - their wages increase faster than the prices, unless political machination redistributes their extra earnings upward to the rich (as in the US since the 1980s).
And if it leads to greater productivity of the low paid, a better life, as is common, it would not be a wash for the legitimate capitalist businessman either - the ones not embezzling. They would have more freedom, sacrifice less of their privacy and personal liberty, remain on the gain side of the return to capital curve.

Wage increases for the bottom 0.01% are temporary, requiring runaway inflation to maintain, which hurts everyone. Where's the evidence that increasing the minimum wage "leads to greater productivity"?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

minimum wage

=

0.01%

?

what does the government say ?

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm

What percent of US workers make minimum wage?
In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

0.01 %
@ 542,000
times 1000
= 543 million employees in the usa ?


https://www.epi.org/blog/millions-of-workers-are-paid-less-than-the-average-minimum-wage/

The Upshot piece explores how the share of workers being paid exactly the federal minimum wage is relatively small. There are two reasons why this is the case. First, the article observes that 89 percent of minimum-wage workers are paid more than the federal $7.25, because 29 states and some 40+ cities and counties have set their own minimum wages above the federal floor. Higher state and local minimum wages—all of which can be found in EPI’s Minimum Wage Tracker—are the result of federal inaction and also due to the tremendous success of the Fight for 15 movement in raising awareness about low wages and pushing for minimum wage increases across the country.

 

[Vociferous]

Yep, only 0.01% of all wage workers earn minimum wage. See my earlier post for the reference.

 

[iceaura]

Better pay raises the cost of doing business, which is always passed on to the consumer through price increases

No. It is usually passed on partially.

Yep, only 0.01% of all wage workers earn minimum wage.

But many more would get pay hikes if the minimum wage were increased.

Wage increases for the bottom 0.01% are temporary, requiring runaway inflation to maintain, which hurts everyone.

Nonsense. The proportion of minimum wage increases that affects prices is too small to do that.

Wage increases used to be routine, in the US, and the Federal minimum wage used to be much higher than it is now - runaway inflation did not happen. Prices were lower, for many things.

That's 0.01% (2.3% of 58.3%) of all workers, meaning 99.99% of all workers only see price increases, without any pay increase.

That assumes all non-wage workers - such as those paid by tips or piecework , waitresses and migrant field hands and the like - earn more hourly than the minimum wage. That is unlikely.

That's a net loss of purchasing power that cannot possibly be made up for by 0.01% of workers.

More error. Since higher wage earners save more and spend less of their income, there would be if anything a net gain in purchasing power. If remuneration to top executives and shareholders is reduced to balance the books, the net increase in purchasing power could be quite large.

Where's the evidence that increasing the minimum wage "leads to greater productivity"?

In the research done by the pros, low wages often reduce productivity - some of the mechanisms:
they induce longer hours; they induce multiple job holdings; they abet inadequate investment in machinery and lower investment in workplace organization and communications; they increase absenteeism, turnover rates, and training costs; they abet poor health in multiple ways, from nutrition and sleep and medical care deficiencies to increased spread of communicable diseases at work; they reduce motivation for creativity and cooperation with management goals.
That list is partial.
And so forth.