The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why? (NYT)

[brettdoyle]

That spending is out of control on the chart you showed. Imagine if a family earning $50k per year ran up credit cards to spend $7,500 (15%) extra income per year.

It is not sustainable.

I suspect the world will go back on a gold standard since that's what we had before this broken monetary system existed. It did a great job of keeping government spending under control and preventing inflation.

 

[Sig]

That spending is out of control on the chart you showed. Imagine if a family earning $50k per year ran up credit cards to spend $7,500 (15%) extra income per year.

It is not sustainable.

I suspect the world will go back on a gold standard since that's what we had before this broken monetary system existed. It did a great job of keeping government spending under control and preventing inflation.

You confuse micro economics of your checkbook with macro economics of nations. They're vastly different, highly recommend taking a free macro MOOC if you're actually interested in this. I think you'd really enjoy it.

That said, the chart shows deficit as a percent of GDP. It definitely will go up in a recession or crisis, as you can see from past history. But you can also see that absent a crisis or foolish tax cut, for example from 2012 to Trump being elected, it was less than during most of the Reagan years. Which tells us that if you didn't think our deficit was unsustainable during the Reagan years you wouldn't think it was unsustainable now (or at least once we get through this COVID and recover from the Trump tax cuts). If you do think we're doomed now, then you would have also thought we were doomed all through the Reagan years. If you think the spike we're currently experiencing now was "out of control" then you really would have thought the spike we experienced during WWII was "out of control", and yet the most prosperous years of the country followed that big chunk of deficit spending. So don't despair, we're no more out of control now than we were in the 80s and those of us alive then survived that more or less intact

 

[TradingForALiving]

Opinion
The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen more slowly under Republicans for nearly the past century.

By David Leonhardt

Graphics by Yaryna Serkez

Mr. Leonhardt is a senior writer at The Times. Ms. Serkez is a writer and graphics editor for Opinion.

• Feb. 2, 2021

Annual growth rate from highest to lowest (1st row: non-farm jobs; 2nd row GDP

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14​

A president has only limited control over the economy. And yet there has been a stark pattern in the United States for nearly a century. The economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

It’s true about almost any major indicator: gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.”

For the complete article please see: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/...te=1&user_id=a29426a01534d4a7bfb67bc30eb3808e

REPUBLICANS funnel money to the rich, who only spend a small part of their income. The rest is actually taken out of the economy and invested in 1. stocks 2. properties. 3. CD's 4. Gold???questionable these days 5. Bitcoin-the new fad.. I.E. the more money that goes to the super rich, the slower the economy moves, because there is less actual money in the economy.

DEMOCRATS funnel money to the poor, who spend it instantly on things that are critical such as food, housing, education, health care, and paying bills. That money instantly goes into the economy... called "Velocity of Money". The faster people change money from one hand to another, the faster the economy speeds up. HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION
Read more: Velocity of Money Definition (investopedia.com)

 

[piezoe]

I suspect the world will go back on a gold standard since that's what we had before this broken monetary system existed.

What makes you think the monetary system is broken? A gold standard, or any other commodity standard, is impractical unless the price of that commodity can be controlled. Even then, it makes no sense in today's world. A monetary system based on fiat money that floats according to supply and demand and based fundamentally on productivity makes far more sense.

 

[piezoe]

REPUBLICANS funnel money to the rich, who only spend a small part of their income. The rest is actually taken out of the economy and invested in 1. stocks 2. properties. 3. CD's 4. Gold???questionable these days 5. Bitcoin-the new fad.. I.E. the more money that goes to the super rich, the slower the economy moves, because there is less actual money in the economy.

DEMOCRATS funnel money to the poor, who spend it instantly on things that are critical such as food, housing, education, health care, and paying bills. That money instantly goes into the economy... called "Velocity of Money". The faster people change money from one hand to another, the faster the economy speeds up. HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION
Read more: Velocity of Money Definition (investopedia.com)

Question? What was the question?

 

[SunTrader]

"The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why?"



Have to admit the other day when I first read that reply I didn't get it either. Although they framed it as your question.

 

[piezoe]

"The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why?"



Have to admit the other day when I first read that reply I didn't get it either. Although they framed it as your question.

Yah. It was the NYT's "Why", that was supposedly answered in the article. But I would say Tradingforaliving is on the right track. This is going to be a huge demand side stimulus coming down the pike, something that it seems would never have occurred to a Republican Senator... Economists believe the only tax cut that may have paid for itself was the Kennedy cut which was demand side oriented (maybe) in that it created a standard deduction of $300 plus $100/exemption . It also dropped the top marginal rate down from 91%! to ~60% (I think) and lowered the corporate rate some too, I believe. This doesn't seem like much of a demand side stimulus to me. There was some spending stimulus as well. Anyway Kennedy sold it as a consumption stimulus.

 

[Monaco]

Because the GOP is wholly comprised of dirt farmers and retards. Dems are educated.

Des....We did not know you were GOP LOL WOW!!! Surely you weren’t talking about yourself were you?

 

[volpri]

Des....We did not know you were GOP LOL WOW!!! Surely you weren’t talking about yourself were you?

Are you talking about diesterio or whatever he call himself. Him GOP? That is hilarious. Are you sure? I think he has me blocked. Got pissed about something I reckon.

 

[TradingForALiving]

Question? What was the question?

The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why?