First let me say that I don’t believe for one minute that there is some perfect economic approach that will bring everlasting prosperity for all. I am also under the view that the situation in America is likely quite unique in that we have a high cost of living and that our cost of living does vary - sometimes significantly - from state to state. We also have a modern industrialized international economy with a high cost of business compared to just about every other country.
Those on the Right, as far as I can tell, generally favor the so-called supply side economic approach - more reliance on the private sector, low taxes, low regulation, less government, more freedom, merit/needs based immigration, etc., approach. Those of the Left, as far as I can tell, believe in what the Democrats are doing now, more reliance on government, raise taxes, a lot of government spending to continue to grow government, have unlimited legal immigration to all people who want to come to America, etc., approach.
So what would you see as the pro’s and con’s of each?
It would seem one of the main aspects of this debate pertains to inflation and whether or not the massive government spending had anything to do with that. Democrat politicians have argued that it has had nothing to do with inflation, so if that’s the case then clearly having government continue to send checks out to people would indeed benefit many.
The global nature of inflation can’t be pinned on the spending of one government. The contribution of like, $2-5k to qualifying the individuals in the United States, is overblown.
The price of stuff hasn’t gone up because I got a check. Prices went up because I when I needed a plastic part to fix a Honda Civic–one of the most common cars–there were only 15 in the whole state.
Republicans, like other conservative governments overseas, are going to be helpless against inflation until supply catches up.
The problem is the rise of rentier capitalism, and that both Democratic and Republican policies feed into it.
The economy is now wholly geared towards those who own v those who work…and those who own are an increasingly smaller, more concentrated group. So there’s no competition to incentivize hem to do anything except extract more economic rent.
Supply side fails because via tax cuts it rewards those who do nothing except extract economic rent the same as those that pursue interests that actually grow the economy. Because of the risks associated with actual economic activity, this “equal treatment” actually favors rentierism…with workers’ increased productivity going not to further the virtuous cycle of economic activity, but into the pockets of rentiers.
Central solutions fail because government money goes out on contract, usually…and those contracts are often won by those who don’t know how to do anything except win government contracts.
Else government money goes into the banking system which also favors the owners.
That little bit that gets into the hands of consumers drives inflation because so little is going into legitimate economic activity,
Fixing this problem is not going to be easy.
It will be next to impossible because the very idea this problem exists is knocked on the head by those who profit from it existing.
So people don’t even believe it’s a problem…as will be exemplified when a certain poster wades into this thread to scoff at me bringing up rentierism again.
When back hoes were invented the people who could afford them suddenly became more productive than those who could afford only shovels.
I cannot buy my own pizza shop.
I can buy stock in Papa Johns.
So long as part of out society attacks and demonizes corporations (like Pap Johns) while kow-towing to the millionaire who owns his own pizza shop, things will not change.
The “liberals” might be right about A, and B and C
but when it comes to demonizing corporations they are dead wrong, absolutely stupid and they are a detriment to those they portend to help.
Fair enough
I did, in fact, guess where you were going, and pointed my comments/arguments there, (which is not the same as addressing your actual comments.)
What I’ve been told by the likes of yourself is that the people who in America steal from others is because of lack of a job. Yet there are all these jobs available so logically these Americans should be the one’s to fill such jobs so they don’t have to steal, correct?
Yes, governments all over the world tried to spend themselves into prosperity.
Central banks all over the world the put their printing presses into warp speed . . . exactly the way our flawed textbooks and flawed economic models taught them to do.
Countries that did a lot of print-and-spend have a lot of inflation.
Countries that (like Turkey, Brazil, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka) that did a ridiculous amount of print-and-spend now have a ridiculous rate of inflation.
“Everyone else did it”
is a piss poor defense for the print-and-spend policies that caused our present wave of inflation.
Not bad
although the pandemic was not the problem. The big government response to the pandemic was the problem
If the pandemic had happened and the governments had done nothing (no shut downs, no stimulus checks, no money printing) the economy would be a lot better off today.
There is plenty of room to blame Trump,
there is still no excuse for the bad policies.
COVID did not cause out current problems
Bad, wrong-headed, overly-intrusive, big government responses to COVID are the cause of the problems we are facing now.
Nah… if the governments had done nothing things would have been much worse.
there would have been world wide a bunch more dead people
you would still have a economic collapse because there are a lot of dead and sick people
businesses would have still shut down on their own because of lack of economic activity and there would be a ■■■■ ton of unemployed people without support.
That said… China’s Covid Zero policy is not the way to handle it either.
