USA Politics (redux)

Started by bhodges, November 10, 2020, 01:09:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

greg

Quote from: Fëanor on June 13, 2021, 08:06:25 AM
Historically and 'till the present the Americans have been obsessed with "liberty" and "rugged individualism" in the sense of I can do whatever I want with little regard for societal good ...
This is a dark view of some of the most important American values. Fewer people take it past that point, that is, past the NAP (non-aggression principle) point. That would just be antisocial tendencies, which is a smallish percentage of the population. They'll likely end up in prison.

Of course those principles are important- what is the opposite? Reliance on the government and helplessness to direct your own life? Doesn't sound like a better alternative.

It's very important as it is one of the reasons why America is responsible for so much innovation throughout its years.


Quote from: Fëanor on June 13, 2021, 08:06:25 AM
More fundamentally, what is the cause of the frustration of so many Americans?  OK, they are mostly White, older, and small-town, but can they all be dismissed as just racists?  Or is there something also at work?  My hypothesis is that much of the frustration is based on the stagnation of incomes and the conviction their children will not better off than they have been.  (Not to say the racism is real enough.)
I'd say this is likely accurate, but it seems like you could get the answers for this more in detail somewhere if you looked for it.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

T. D.

Quote from: Daverz on June 13, 2021, 06:55:58 PM
Wow, topsy turvy day, Droggy is the optimist and Henning the cynic. 

IMO, things aren't looking good for American democracy, let alone the Democratic agenda.

+1 with exclamation marks.

drogulus

Quote from: Fëanor on June 14, 2021, 03:48:38 AM


But "Deutschland" had nothing in the way of carrots to offer.

     Yet it did, but only after the NAZIs decided to stop running out of money. If money run outs were real things depressions could never end. I mean, howyougonna payforit?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

drogulus

#2723
     Does the Welfare State Make Countries Richer?

Justin Fox: The coronavirus pandemic has caused a dramatic expansion in government-funded social welfare programs in many countries, including the United States. A major theme of your new book, "Making Social Spending Work" — as well as some of your earlier work — is that the welfare state is a free lunch. What do you mean by that?

Peter Lindert, Distinguished Professor of Economics, Emeritus, University of California at Davis: It's a free lunch in the sense that it doesn't lower our average incomes, but at the same time it does provide other things such as more equality, cleaner government, etc. Lifespans are longer, welfare states do not run bigger deficits, poverty is lower.


     I don't see how a welfare state could run a bigger deficit. Welfare dollars aren't going to come back any slower than other dollars. In fact, they will be spent at close to 100% by beneficiaries, so welfare dollars will recycle via taxation at least as efficiently as other dollars.

     To the extent that welfare spending acts to prop up capitalism by countering its tendency to impoverish its customers I'd say yes, welfare spending is enriching in its aggregate effects on the economy. However much people want to justify welfare states on ethical grounds, the only reason they could ever become the chosen path as countries become rich is good old fashioned brute force economics.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Fëanor

#2724
Quote from: drogulus on June 15, 2021, 10:55:50 AM
...
     To the extent that welfare spending acts to prop up capitalism by countering its tendency to impoverish its customers I'd say yes, welfare spending is enriching in its aggregate effects on the economy. However much people want to justify welfare states on ethical grounds, the only reason they could ever become the chosen path as countries become rich is good old fashioned brute force economics.

In the first place there is no particular conflict or contradiction between either a market economy ort capitalism -- both continue to work in a welfare state.

Laissez faire capitalism does tend to concentrate wealth and power;  this may make an economy "richer" in terms of total GDP but give a hugely disproportionate share to the Rich.  But this is likely to, and I'd argue has already, increased social/political instability.

OTOH laissez faire might not even do this because better wealth distribution might increase overall Demand by giving typical citizens more purchasing power.  Ironically this could well benefit the Rich in the longer run thanks to the tendency for money to trickle up.

Thus there is no reason to assume the welfarism is justified only by ethics or altruism:  it likely makes very good sense in terms of fundamental economics.

Karl Henning

Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2021, 12:58:39 PM
I am White, Male, Heterosexual and Christian...

What was the question?
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Karl Henning

Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

milk


Pohjolas Daughter

So, this person gets an 8 month sentence:  https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/capitol-riot-first-felony-sentence-500149

and this person gets 5 yearshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/texas-woman-sentenced-five-years-trying-vote-gets-new-appeal-n1262691

:-\

From the article:

"Since her arrest, Grinter said Mason has become a "tireless" voting rights advocate.

"It's really important to her that people not see her story and get discouraged from going to the ballot box, because she feels like that's exactly what the Tarrant County district attorney wants to have happen," she said."


Something to think about...

PD

Pohjolas Daughter

Que

#2729
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 23, 2021, 03:46:57 AM
and this person gets 5 yearshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/texas-woman-sentenced-five-years-trying-vote-gets-new-appeal-n1262691

:-\

From the article:

"Since her arrest, Grinter said Mason has become a "tireless" voting rights advocate.

"It's really important to her that people not see her story and get discouraged from going to the ballot box, because she feels like that's exactly what the Tarrant County district attorney wants to have happen," she said."


Something to think about...

PD

Would she have been sentenced in this way, or even prosecuted if she would have been white?  ::)

If you would want to discourage black people from voting, a case like this seems very effective...

And:

https://theappeal.org/texas-da-who-sent-woman-to-prison-for-five-years-for-voting-made-her-own-election-mistake/

DA's looking for "easy" scores to look "though" while crime rates are going through the roof.

As I said before: you guys live in a scary country....

Karl Henning

Quote from: Que on July 23, 2021, 04:17:46 AM
As I said before: you guys live in a scary country....


It's the people, mostly ....

America's Imperfect Founding
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Pohjolas Daughter

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2021, 12:36:44 PM
It's the people, mostly ....

America's Imperfect Founding
Thank you for that link Karl...quite interesting.  I'll give it a better and more complete reading tomorrow.

PD
Pohjolas Daughter

BasilValentine

Quote from: Que on July 23, 2021, 04:17:46 AM
Would she have been sentenced in this way, or even prosecuted if she would have been white?  ::)

If you would want to discourage black people from voting, a case like this seems very effective...

And:

https://theappeal.org/texas-da-who-sent-woman-to-prison-for-five-years-for-voting-made-her-own-election-mistake/


No doubt you were implying this, but just to underline it: The sentences are specifically designed as a threat to black people to keep them from voting. A white woman in Pennsylvania who intentionally voted three times for Trump was sentenced to three days in jail. In Texas she would probably have gotten off with zero. 

Fëanor

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2021, 12:36:44 PM
It's the people, mostly ....

America's Imperfect Founding

As foreigner with a slightly sophomoric understanding of American history, it has been clear to me for a long time that the USA is very imperfect democracy.  It sad enough to understand the "Founding Father" feared a more thorough democracy and designed the Constitution accordingly;  it sadder and scary to understand that a lot of people are still happy with that state of affairs.

Also, I've understood for decades that the further threat to American democracy comes from the Right, not the Left.

Dry Brett Kavanaugh

#2734
Quote from: Fëanor on June 17, 2021, 10:55:21 AM
In the first place there is no particular conflict or contradiction between either a market economy ort capitalism -- both continue to work in a welfare state.

Laissez faire capitalism does tend to concentrate wealth and power;  this may make an economy "richer" in terms of total GDP but give a hugely disproportionate share to the Rich.  But this is likely to, and I'd argue has already, increased social/political instability.

OTOH laissez faire might not even do this because better wealth distribution might increase overall Demand by giving typical citizens more purchasing power.  Ironically this could well benefit the Rich in the longer run thanks to the tendency for money to trickle up.

Thus there is no reason to assume the welfarism is justified only by ethics or altruism:  it likely makes very good sense in terms of fundamental economics.



Most economists tend to affirm a trade off between the size of entire pie (nat'l asset/economy) and equality in the distribution of the pie. Thus, enhancing the latter tends to decrease, not increase, the former in long term over all. Enhancement of the former generally decreases the latter, vice versa. You are right about the enhanced demand by active redistribution. But the decline in incentives for supply/production could be disproportionately larger. I am not saying that the sound economy is more important than equality. They are apples and oranges. As for the equality/stability connection, it is not very simple.

Karl Henning

As conservative writer David French puts it, "you can't fact-check, plead, or argue a person out of a conspiracy, because you're trying to fact-check, plead, and argue them out of their community."

How Trumpists Prey on Loneliness, and Loneliness Preys on Trumpists
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Fëanor

Quote from: Dry Brett Kavanaugh on July 25, 2021, 07:44:50 AM
Most economists tend to affirm a trade off between the size of entire pie (nat'l asset/economy) and equality in the distribution of the pie. Thus, enhancing the latter tends to decrease, not increase, the former in long term over all. Enhancement of the former generally decreases the latter, vice versa. You are right about the enhanced demand by active redistribution. But the decline in incentives for supply/production could be disproportionately larger. I am not saying that the sound economy is more important than equality. They are apples and oranges. As for the equality/stability connection, it is not very simple.

You are tending to the "Neo-classical" economic position.  I think it is overstate.  In case of strictly enforced equality, (which has never really happened anywhere), it would be true but otherwise not so much.

The role on "incentives", especially in the form of low taxes on the wealthy, is definitely overstated.  The US economy was never been better in recent history than in the '50s when the highest marginal rate was 91% (vs. 35% today).  The Rich do not invest because they as spare cash in their accounts, they make productive investments when they perceive strong demand for goods or services.  The USA is awash with cash today but much so-called investment is going into one or another form of speculation, i.e. acquisition of existing asset in hope of appreciation.

Spotted Horses

Quote from: Fëanor on July 26, 2021, 06:52:00 AMThe role on "incentives", especially in the form of low taxes on the wealthy, is definitely overstated.  The US economy was never been better in recent history than in the '50s when the highest marginal rate was 91% (vs. 35% today).  The Rich do not invest because they as spare cash in their accounts, they make productive investments when they perceive strong demand for goods or services.  The USA is awash with cash today but much so-called investment is going into one or another form of speculation, i.e. acquisition of existing asset in hope of appreciation.

Quite so. The primary motivation for business investment is potential customers with cash in their pockets. During the period of time when mean wages grew with productivity (after WWII until the mid 70's) economic growth in the U.S. was huge. When this trend ended, wages became flat and larger and larger fraction of revenue went to investors, economic growth became anemic.
There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind. - Duke Ellington

Dry Brett Kavanaugh

Quote from: Fëanor on July 26, 2021, 06:52:00 AM
You are tending to the "Neo-classical" economic position.  I think it is overstate.  In case of strictly enforced equality, (which has never really happened anywhere), it would be true but otherwise not so much.

The role on "incentives", especially in the form of low taxes on the wealthy, is definitely overstated.  The US economy was never been better in recent history than in the '50s when the highest marginal rate was 91% (vs. 35% today).  The Rich do not invest because they as spare cash in their accounts, they make productive investments when they perceive strong demand for goods or services.  The USA is awash with cash today but much so-called investment is going into one or another form of speculation, i.e. acquisition of existing asset in hope of appreciation.

There are several college text books of Microeconomics and Public Finance from major academic publishers. Most of them explain/affirm a tradeoff between the economic performance and the size of redistribution in "long term." I don't recall any of them suggesting that the two go together although the economy could be additionally influenced by many factors other than redistribution. Also, this is the case for liberal, as well as conservative, economists.

BasilValentine

I've been thinking about the future. Has anyone else come to the conclusion that if a Republican wins the WH in 2024, that person will immediately pardon all of the insurrectionsists?