Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 700014 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Cost of minimum wage increase, 1.4 million jobs, inflation, debt, burdens
« Reply #1950 on: March 10, 2021, 07:25:08 AM »
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/maximum-facts-about-the-minimum-wage

MAXIMUM FACTS ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE
MARCH 9, 2021
By James Agresti
The estimated tradeoffs for this meager increase in income is the destruction of 1.4 million jobs, a slight decline in the overall economy, increased inflation, more government debt, and greater burdens on taxpayers.
----------
Did your local Dem representative tell you this?
Did your local paper tell you this?
Do they all still believe free money?

If it's really free to mandate private sector raises, why are they spending another $2Trillion in public (play) money?

Who pays the millions who lose jobs.  Who loses out and for how long when young don't get what would otherwise be their first job?

Do the math.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics - unemployment
« Reply #1951 on: March 18, 2021, 12:30:33 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, Are you for or against prosperity?
« Reply #1952 on: March 31, 2021, 07:58:20 AM »
This is a question I used to ask a liberal friend who used to be willing to spar with me:

Are you for or against prosperity?

It's a simple question and the answer separates the sides.  The AOC, Bernie Sanders, socialist side opposes wealth (other than their own). On the other side, Jack Kemp famously said about rich people, "what we need is more of them".  Moderate Democrats, and Joe Biden used to be one, need to figure out where they are on this.

Is it good for the larger society that I worked hard and saved and invested all my adult life?  Nothing heroic but I am one more person willing to pay in (at a reasonable rate) and wanting nothing from the government n the way of payments or support.

Is it bad for their society in a poor country that no one has wealth to hire people at good wages to do big things?

The reason I ask now is that the Biden so called infrastructure proposal includes massive tax rate increases that will discourage further  wealth creation including the end of 'stepped up basis' that is the heart of being able to leave assets to your heirs. If you cannot pass along small amounts of wealth, why work, save, invest to accumulate it?

From another thread, G M:  March 22, 2021

"The problem is, many on the left have a serious inability to grasp cause and effect".

I've been wanting to copy that quote to this topic.  By discouraging wealth creation, we will get less of it.  Why is that so hard to grasp?  And when we get less orosperity and wealth, whar will be able to do less of as a society?  Well, we will be able to do less to clean up the environment.  We will be able to do less in the way of health care and public health.  We will be able to do less to help the poor.  We will employ fewer people.  We will have less in wage gains.  We will have more poor needing help competing for fewer dollars. We will have less money for future infrastructure.  We will lose the ability to borrow in our own currency, cf. Argentina. We will have a diminished ability to defend ourselves against enemies foreign and domestic.

Now, someone from the Left jump in here and explain the other side of it, the benefits of killing the golden goose, of being borrowed to the hilt and being broke. Can't wait to hear it.  Instead we will hear tonight from the President the denial of science, that the discouragement and confiscation of private wealth will maje us better, richer. But how do pay for future big government programs without a healthy, vibrant private sector. We can't.  (cf. Venezuela)

But:  "The problem is, many (all?) on the left have a serious inability to grasp cause and effect."
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 08:40:13 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1953 on: March 31, 2021, 08:36:08 AM »
"This is a question I used to ask a liberal friend who used to be willing to spar with me:"

I don't know about your friend

but liberals do not want to discuss anything, now they control corporate media entertainment and both houses and the WH they just want to ram their politics down our throats and hunt us like Tasmanian tigers to extinction .


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1954 on: March 31, 2021, 08:58:47 AM »
"I don't know about your friends
but liberals do not want to discuss anything,..."

They think and talk in terms of people (and hate of people, Trump, Trump, Trump) and not  policies.  But tax and spend, the infrastructure plan coming tonight, is policy, nothing to do with Trump, me or anyone on the right.

In the case of my friends, I think they fear losing the friendship over these matters in polarized times.  But doesn't being unwilling to discuss real issues in honest terms, being uncurious to understand the other's view, limit the depth of the friendship?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1955 on: March 31, 2021, 10:28:14 AM »
"ram their politics down our throats and hunt us like Tasmanian tigers to extinction"

THIS.


"This is a question I used to ask a liberal friend who used to be willing to spar with me:"

I don't know about your friend

but liberals do not want to discuss anything, now they control corporate media entertainment and both houses and the WH they just want to ram their politics down our throats and hunt us like Tasmanian tigers to extinction .

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics - Justice, Walter Williams
« Reply #1956 on: April 01, 2021, 12:21:12 PM »
“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?” —Walter E. Williams


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, wages PPP, purchasing power parity
« Reply #1958 on: April 14, 2021, 09:53:49 AM »
When you compare incomes of people from different places, it needs to be done with PPP, purchasing power parity.  In other words, income dollars need to be adjusted for cost of living.  Now we have this:

Dept. of Labor:  "Consumer prices rise more than expected, pushed by 9.1% jump in gasoline"
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/13/us-consumer-price-index-march-2021.html

Of course gas prices are going up.  The administration is blocking pipelines, drilling, refining, even the buying of gas powered vehicles.

Who does that hit hardest?  A multi-millionaire with a taxpayer subsidized Tesla plugged in at  home, or a tradesman out making a living, paying more for all his materials, now looking at a hundred dollars for a tank of gas?

Biden and the liberals agenda push prices up - on everything.  Look what their doing to electricity.  Look at the cost of living in the places they run.  Look at the price growth in the things they regulate most versus those that are more free market.

Now they are pushing the costs of living up before employment and wages come back.  Who does that help? 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Political Economics: These policies don't create jobs
« Reply #1959 on: May 09, 2021, 05:24:24 AM »
Jobs report, 250k 'created' out if one million ' expected'.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/groups-slam-biden-war-small-business-disappointing-jobs-numbers
--------------------

Who expects anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-market policies to create jobs or growth?

Does anyone remember Obama saying those jobs (manufacturing) are never coming back - before Trump and the Republicans brought them back?

Decline is a (bad) choice.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1960 on: May 09, 2021, 11:54:29 AM »
The Supply-Side Jobs Slowdown
When you pay people not to work, guess what? Many people don’t.
By The Editorial Board
May 7, 2021 6:27 pm ET
An economy doesn’t live by demand alone. There is no clearer evidence of that dictum than Friday’s surprising jobs report for April, which undershot the expectations of economists by more than 700,000. Welcome to the supply-side jobs slowdown.
Employers added a net 266,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate ticked up 0.1 percentage point to 6.1%. Payrolls for March and February were revised down a combined 78,000, and 48,000 of the new jobs in April were in government, mostly local education as schools reopened.
The report wasn’t a total washout, as private payrolls grew 218,000, mostly from leisure and hospitality jobs (331,000) as the lockdowns continued to ease. But there were large losses in temporary positions (-111,400), couriers (-77,400), food and beverage stores (-49,400), and nursing homes (-19,500). Some of this reflects a reallocation of jobs as businesses reopen and consumption shifts.
The Keynesians who now run U.S. policy, at the Treasury and Federal Reserve, have been using their usual demand-side playbook. Bathe the country in government cash, keep interest rates at zero, and the resulting rise in consumer demand will drive everything.
They’ve underestimated the supply-chain constraints that have been screaming across the economy for months—from too few workers to the computer chip shortage and soaring lumber and freight prices. The economy can’t produce enough goods and services fast enough to meet the soaring demand from the easing pandemic and government policies that have shoveled cash to consumers and rewarded Americans for not working.
Employers across the country have been complaining for months that the federal $300 weekly jobless bonus has made it difficult to hire. Most lower-income workers can make more sitting on the couch. It’s notable that half of the new labor market entrants last month were teens, most of whom don’t qualify for jobless benefits because of their short or nonexistent employment histories.
This was all predicted a year ago by these columns and a few others, including Sens. Ben Sasse and Lindsey Graham and economists Casey Mulligan and Steve Moore. But even as the economy was growing fast again, Democrats in March extended the $300 weekly bonus into September even as they ladled out a bonanza of other transfer payments.
Democrats claimed their $1.9 trillion spending bill was needed to jolt the economy, though it was fast recovering as vaccines rolled out and lockdowns eased. Now the White House is spinning the jobs miss after its spending blowout as something it expected.
“I want to remind everybody it was designed to help us over the course of a year, not 60 days,” President Biden said Friday, adding that the small job growth is “a testament to our new strategy of growing this economy from the bottom up and the middle out” and underscores the need for more government stimulus.
He also said there was no “measurable” data that people aren’t looking for jobs because it pays more not to work. He should get out more and ask some small business owners. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen walked that back some by saying unemployment benefits weren’t a “major factor.” But the Labor Department’s latest Jolts survey showed 7.4 million job openings in February. There are plenty of available jobs but not enough willing workers.
The good news for those who are working is that employers are paying more to attract and keep them. Average hourly earnings last month increased at an 8.4% annual rate and even more for lower-income jobs like retail (16.8%) and leisure and hospitality (19.2%). The risk is that these wage increases will become embedded in expectations and lead to a more general inflation.
The policy lesson is to ease government constraints on supply. That means repealing the federal bonus not to work. And it should mean withdrawing the Biden tax increases that are a frontal attack on investment and supply. There is no need for more Keynesian stimulus, which has become part of the problem.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1961 on: May 09, 2021, 04:37:27 PM »
Great article.  The irony of it is, liberals would benefit most from pro-growth policies.  Aside from the massive deficit spending, liberals, if they were sincere about helping people in need, would have more money to spend on programs that help the poor or improving the infrastructure if they would optimize private sector growth. 

But they don't.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Political Economics - Incentives Still Matter, Larry Kudlow
« Reply #1962 on: May 10, 2021, 11:21:51 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/capital-record/episode-16-incentives-still-matter/
44 minute podcast.

Title is understated.  Incentives don't just matter, they are everything in economics.

Why are there still deniers of this, and why are those people running our country?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Biden is the new FDR?
« Reply #1963 on: May 11, 2021, 07:09:52 AM »
https://www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla-economists-calculate/

FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years.   - UCLA economists calculate

Biden wants to flood the economy with $6 trillion of new money, however, lack of money wasn't the cause of the economy closing (mostly in blue states).

This isn't the Great depression - and those policies didn't work then either! 

Employment and wage growth was the best ever in 2018, 2019 and in the beginning of 2020 when Wuhan Covid  closings began.   A year later, we know the virus has a kill rate one tenth of what we were told to justify the first closings.  We have multiple vaccines available now to all who want them.  The vaccines have a 95% efficacy of preventing the infection and roughly a 100% efficacy of preventing death from covid.  Other than not let a good crisis go to waste politically, why are we growing the 'regular' budget by 16% while adding trillions upon trillions of new spending onto it? 

Milton Friedman said, "Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government [spending] program."

None other than candidate Barack Obama said in 2008,
WATCH THIS and share it, it's 30 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the past eight years, is to take out a credit card, from the bank of China, in the name of our children, to drive up our national debt from 5 trillion dollars from our first 42 Presidents, number 43 added 4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so we now have over 9 trillion dollars of debt, that we are gonna have to pay back.  Thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child.  That's irresponsible!  That's unpatriotic!"    - Barack Obama at campaign event in Fargo ND, July 3, 2008

Is it?

What a master.  In 30 seconds, he blamed it all on Bush while Obama himself was the de facto leader of the Senate in the highest spending years.  He brought in the children, framed it in history, put it in per person terms, included the consequence of destroying our future, then he did the same thing in his Presidency, only far worse.

Jump forward 8 years:  In President Obama's last fiscal year, 2016, national debt increased by $1,422,827,047,452--That's $12,036 per household - in one year.  Total debt of $19,573,444,713,936 had more than doubled from what his 43 predecessors ran up, worse than Bush by two and half times.

That's irresponsible.  That's unpatriotic - by times two and a half times.  And I don't mean that mockingly; I mean it literally.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/federal-debt-fy-2016-jumped-142282704745246
https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Imagine for a second that Barack Obama meant what he said, every word of it, that he truly cared about the economy, the debt, the children, and the future, and the credit card with China, that we really did hold Presidents accountable, that he had not run up the national debt $10 trillion further in his 8 years, that he was patriotic to his country over his party and serious about the economic impact, and now asked to comment on the $6 trillion in new spending proposed by Biden...  Play the youtube video again with those arrows aimed at Biden instead of Bush.  Irresponsible.  Unpatriotic.  How about it's just bad policy?  What prolonged the Great Depression is destined to make this economy worse too.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Democrats war on small business
« Reply #1965 on: May 13, 2021, 07:51:48 AM »
https://www.jobcreatorsnetwork.com/opeds/democrats-wage-war-on-small-business-with-credit-suppression/
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2021/05/13/democrats_wage_war_on_small_business_with_credit_suppression_776789.html

Democrats Wage War On Small Business with Credit Suppression
OP-EDAPPEARED IN REALCLEAR MARKETS ON MAY 13, 2021BY ALFREDO ORTIZ

After a brutal year, American small businesses are poised to take advantage of the end of the pandemic and the associated pent-up consumer demand. Many small businesses are looking to scale up to leverage this opportunity by taking out loans to increase supply and capacity. Access to credit will allow small businesses to capitalize on this moment and help lubricate the broader economic recovery.

Yet Congressional Democrats threaten to significantly reduce credit availability by voting to overturn President Trump’s “true lender” rule via the Congressional Review Act as soon as this week. (The CRA allows Congress to spike recent executive orders through a simple majority vote.) This attack on access to capital is part of Democrats’ broader war on small businesses — an assault that includes massive new tax increases and onerous regulations like a $15 federal minimum wage.

Last October, the Trump administration finalized its true lender rule, defining the regulatory requirements and compliance obligations between banks and third-party lenders. It clarifies that banks are generally the real lenders when they partner with intermediaries to offer loans. The order is needed to harness and provide regulatory certainty for the growing number of app-based lenders that make up the fintech revolution. In January, nearly 50 economists and financial scholars noted that reversing this rule would hurt secondary lending markets and reduce access to credit.

Community banks have been decimated over the last decade largely due to onerous Dodd-Frank financial regulations. In Wyoming, for instance, the number of FDIC-insured banks has fallen by nearly half since the year 2000. Fintech has stepped in to fill these banking deserts, helping small businesses access loans that big banks generally don’t offer. These 21st-century lenders make loan origination easier and more consumer-friendly. They increase credit options for small businesses, especially those from underbanked communities.

The rule also helps community banks themselves, which often can’t afford to acquire the personnel and infrastructure needed to offer the wide range of financing options required by consumers. According to a survey by the consultancy Cornerstone Advisors, two-thirds of banks and three-quarters of credit unions said fintech partnerships are important to their business strategies. Reversing the true lender rule would put further financial pressure on community banks across the country and further entrench big banks’ power.

So why do Democrats oppose this rule? They claim it weakens consumer protections. Sen. Chris Van Hollen states that by issuing this rule, “The Trump Administration ripped consumer protections to shreds, leaving Americans vulnerable to unscrupulous predatory lenders who charge outrageous interest rates.” Actually, the rule doesn’t alter consumer protection laws; it allows lenders to extend credit to those limited to more expensive payday or title loan lenders. Fintech fills a vital gap between these non-bank lenders and major financial institutions.

Democrats’ real opposition is likely more due to their paternalistic view that some people can’t understand interest rates, their antipathy toward the needs of small businesses, and their hatred of any reform passed by the Trump Administration.

Over 200,000 small businesses permanently closed during the pandemic. Those that hung on are poised to reap the rewards as the vaccine stimulus begins to pay dividends. Curtailing access to credit for these businesses by using the CRA to eliminate the true lender rule would pull the rug out under them at the worst possible time and put the brakes on the fintech revolution. It would amount to another major escalation in Democrats’ war on small businesses.

Alfredo Ortiz is the president and CEO of the Job Creators Network.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1967 on: May 20, 2021, 02:31:13 PM »
We warned that the policies of Bernie Sanders were the same of those of Chavez, Maduro and Venezuela.  We warned that if you enact those policies, you will get those results. Now we have a Joe Biden Administration pursuing Bernie Sanders policies, same as Venezuela. In just four short months, the main concern of the electorate now is inflation.

Fine, so what are we in for?

Venezuelan economy:  In 2018, the annual inflation rate reached 929,790% and was expected to reach 10,000,000% by the end of 2019. According to the October 2019.

If we want that here, keep doing exactly what we are doing.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Political Economics, It's time for a Supply Side resurgence
« Reply #1968 on: May 21, 2021, 07:24:00 AM »
I have to ask Biden and everyone who votes Left, do you even want prosperity and widespread economic growth?  If so, why do you keep doing the opposite?  Wayne Winegarden explains how this works in Forbes this month.  The Biden approach substitutes government money for private income on the demand side, and directly harms the supply side. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynewinegarden/2021/05/10/its-time-for-a-supply-side-resurgence/

May 10, 2021,02:16pm EDT|852 views
It’s Time For A Supply-Side Resurgence
Wayne Winegarden
Economic Growth and Prosperity

The Biden administration’s multi-trillion-dollar stimulus and spending policies are exclusively demand-side measures aimed at supporting the consumer. But this focus is blinding the Biden team from mounting economic crises that are resulting from this anti-growth agenda.

Instead, the federal government desperately needs to implement a comprehensive supply-side agenda – low-taxes, affordable government spending, sound money, free international trade, and low-cost regulations.

Starting with spending, Keynesian logic is driving President Biden’s spending proposals that will, in total, expand the federal budget by nearly $6 trillion dollars. Pre-Covid, the entire federal budget was only $4.4 trillion.

The demand-centric economic models claim that this spending boosts demand, which then encourages greater production. The expanding production creates even more demand, which starts a virtuous cycle that ultimately promotes broad-based economic growth.

Even under the generous assumption that government spending is just as efficient as private sector spending, which is unlikely given the current size and expanded scope of the federal government, every dollar that the government spends means that the private sector has one less dollar to spend. And, this is true whether the government funds the spending through taxes or debt.


Materiality Across Asset Classes: A Look At Fixed Income ESG Integration
Consequently, there is no stimulus from government spending once the sources of the government funding are appropriately considered. Every positive impact that the government spending creates is completely offset by an equal and opposite negative impact from the reduced spending in the private sector.

But, this is not the end of the story. Government taxation and borrowing creates disincentives and distortions that disincentivize economic growth. These are the supply-side considerations that the demand-side models informing the Biden Administration ignore.

President Biden proposes funding his $6 trillion spending bonanza by increasing corporate income and capital gains taxes. Corporate income tax rates would go from around the global average to one of the highest corporate income tax rates among the developed economies. Capital gains taxes would increase to its highest rate in over a century.

These tax increases will disincentivize the investment that is necessary to incent the innovations necessary to promote broad-based prosperity and robust economic growth. Due to these effects, the Biden stimulus plan will ultimately de-stimulate the economy.

The Biden plan also fails in its distributional intent. While the President promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 annually, he cannot promise that the economic consequences will not harm people of all income levels. Empirical studies have found that workers bear a disproportionate share of the tax increases’ costs through more unemployment and sluggish wage growth.

And it will not simply be big companies and the rich who will directly pay more in taxes. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are over 1.4 million small business organized as corporations. These smaller “Mom and Pop” businesses will be hit directly with the corporate tax hikes in the Biden plan.

As the Chamber notes, many of these small businesses suffered some of the worst consequences during the pandemic but “would also see their tax bills increase significantly. In turn, this would have a negative impact on small businesses’ investment and growth plans and, most critically, hiring and job creation.” Put differently, the Biden tax increases are counterproductive because they will create the very problems that their proposed spending increases are supposed to resolve.

Monetary policy, which is a much more complicated and esoteric policy area, suffers from a similar problem.

Over-simplifying, the Federal Reserve uses a demand-centric framework to actively manage the economy. Their actions are unintentionally creating an unstable pricing environment that causes wild swings in commodity prices, persistent asset bubbles and crashes, and a volatile dollar-euro exchange rate. These instabilities impose many adverse consequences on families and businesses (particularly small businesses) including suppressing returns for savers in safe assets, encouraging people to take on greater financial risks than they should, and distorting the economy’s capital structure.

Another important plank of the supply-side policy mix is a sound regulatory structure that ensures important social issues are addressed while imposing as low a cost as possible. Unfortunately, the President’s policies here would also take us in the wrong direction through regulations that would be economically costly, yet achieve few results.

For instance, his target of reducing GHG emissions between 50% and 52% below 2005 levels by 2030 is unachievable, yet will be incredibly costly for lower- and middle-income families who cannot afford significant increases in the price of energy.

Similarly, when President Biden indicated he would support “temporarily” waiving biopharmaceutical patent rights for Covid-19 vaccines, he undermined one of the U.S. economy’s key comparative advantages – a regulatory system that protects intellectual property (IP) rights.

Thanks to an environment that respects intellectual property, the U.S. has become a global leader in cutting edge industries such as the biopharmaceutical sector. Waiving these rights is political theater because the IP protections are not causing vaccine shortages in many developing countries. Worse, undermining property rights will discourage investment in U.S. high-tech sector over the long-term, threatening the creation of good paying U.S. jobs of the future.

Taken altogether, the Biden economic agenda is dis-incentivizing economic growth. Once the initial surge out of the shutdowns peters out, we will see a stagnant economy that exacerbates income inequality, reduces prosperity, and weakens long-term growth. Ultimately, the financial stability for millions of families will be threatened.

A principled supply-side economic agenda would rectify these problems. From a fiscal perspective, a supply-side agenda would replace the current complex anti-growth tax system with a streamlined system that has smaller compliance costs and imposes fewer distortions on the economy. As the evidence amassed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce demonstrates, the real-world benefits from streamlining the tax system includes a more vibrant environment for businesses, large and small, that expands employment and leads to broad-based growth in incomes.

The flip side of taxes is spending. As I have argued previously, government spending is just like any other good. As more and more government services are provided, the value of that spending declines. Eventually, should the government budget continue to grow, its value will become less than the value of those resources in the private sector.

Judged against the goal of maximizing economic growth, the amount of government spending should be around 16% of the economy. Instead of this growth maximizing rate, federal outlays are now around 31% of the economy, which is all-time highs for the U.S. during peacetime. The unprecedented spending is why the total debt of the federal government is now larger than the entire economy (129% of GDP).

Reforming this clearly unaffordable amount of spending is an essential plank of a supply-side policy mix. This should be achieved by imposing strict controls over the growth of spending. Within this tight budget constraint, spending should be reprioritized to reflect pressing public needs (such as infrastructure) as opposed to the many wasteful and lower-valued projects.

While space limitations restrict a detailed discussion of the other policy areas, the basic logic is that the government should promote a rules-based environment that enhances the ability of private individuals to work and thrive.

The focus of monetary policy should be establishing a stable price level that does not punish savers nor distort the capital structure. This requires replacing the discretionary authority of the Federal Reserve with a rules-based system. There are many sound proposals, and most would be a large improvement over the current volatile system.

The current regulatory morass should be streamlined to minimize its costs on private businesses and individuals. Similarly, trade with other countries should be expanded to foster greater opportunity for all Americans.

In contrast to the current government-centric approach of the Biden Administration, a supply-side economic policy mix recognizes that market driven growth, freer international trade, and a stable price system are the sine qua non for creating broad-based and sustainable economic prosperity.

Wayne Winegarden
I am a Senior Fellow in Business and Economics at the Pacific Research Institute and the Director of PRI's Center for Medical Economics and Innovation. My research explores the connection between macroeconomic policies and economic outcomes, with a focus on the health care and energy industries. I have over 25 years of experience advising Fortune 500 companies, medium and small businesses, and trade associations. I received my Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2021, 08:55:44 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Three pitfalls of Bidenomics
« Reply #1969 on: May 23, 2021, 06:19:05 AM »
Three pillars of Bidenomics will bring our economic demise:

Reversing energy independence

Increasing government dependence

Embracing "Modern Monetary Theory"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/three-pitfalls-of-bidenomics
« Last Edit: May 23, 2021, 06:25:08 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1970 on: May 23, 2021, 09:05:06 PM »
Good bullet points.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: Three pitfalls of Bidenomics
« Reply #1971 on: May 23, 2021, 09:23:30 PM »
https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/zimbabwe-struggles-with-hyperinflation-its-a-nightmare/

Modern Zimbabwean Monetary Theory


Three pillars of Bidenomics will bring our economic demise:

Reversing energy independence

Increasing government dependence

Embracing "Modern Monetary Theory"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/three-pitfalls-of-bidenomics

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Three pitfalls of Bidenomics
« Reply #1972 on: May 24, 2021, 07:14:07 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/zimbabwe-struggles-with-hyperinflation-its-a-nightmare/

Modern Zimbabwean Monetary Theory


Three pillars of Bidenomics will bring our economic demise:

Reversing energy independence

Increasing government dependence

Embracing "Modern Monetary Theory"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/three-pitfalls-of-bidenomics

They are deniers of math, science, history and world affairs if they don't believe these policies have these results.  Also, they are the definition of insanity, trying reckless irresponsible socialist communist totalitarian governance again and again and again expecting a different result.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, What grows the economy?
« Reply #1973 on: May 24, 2021, 07:44:32 AM »
The economic recovery (Super V) of last May-Aug was from business reopening wage growth, not from the government handouts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351784462_CARES_Act_Stimulus_Did_Not_Replace_Lost_Wages

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1974 on: June 10, 2021, 08:35:59 AM »
Trump achieved highest wage growth in 20 years.

Now Biden has the highest inflation in 30 years.

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/06/10/core-consumer-prices-surge-at-fastest-rate-since-1992/

Choose economic policies wisely.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1975 on: June 10, 2021, 09:11:18 AM »
"Trump achieved highest wage growth in 20 years.

Now Biden has the highest inflation in 30 years.

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/06/10/core-consumer-prices-surge-at-fastest-rate-since-1992/

Choose economic policies wisely."

But Krugman. and Reich told us "the world is awash in cash"  (most in the hands of the top 10 K people in the world 
so nothing is a biggee

spend on .....

*debt as per GDP* is supposedly better than in past (or any other ratio they can dream up to play the numbers around to swindle us into thinking all is good)

look at the data, c'mon man

problem is the type of data, how it is arranged or used in "formulas"  can easily be manipulated to show almost anything



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile