Already have the philosophy degree and another MA. But could you point me to a good program for the French Lesbian History studies? One that preferably has a semester abroad requirement and a strong engaged learning component. Never too old to go back to school and this area of major could really align with my interests. Merci.
The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why? (NYT)
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
Could it be that the two parties just leverage the focus of this government spending in different areas? For the republicans it's corporate welfare, defense, and border walls and for democrats it tends to be larger social welfare programs. My guess would be the former doesn't really lead to any trickle down boosting of the consumer economy whereas the later does as poor people usually spend all their money to survive as they have to.
I can tell you as someone with real estate holdings whose portfolio of properties makes me more of a social worker than a land baron how many times I'm offered a couple hundred in SNAP benefits in lieu of the late rent. We hardly ever socialize outside our own economic circles unless it's jury duty or a trip to renew your license at the DMV. I spent an hour yesterday with a tenant whose boyfriend fell down the steps in a freak accident and is paralyzed, spent a month in a coma, and has been waiting three months for his unemployment to kick in. She can't work now as she has to provide his care full time as he's oddly paralyzed waste up. He was working three jobs. So finally after three months his unemployment benefits might kick in. Eventually he'll probably qualify for SSI from the disability and perhaps she can be paid to be his caretaker but alas she's a felon (recovered addict ten years sober) so is excluded. There $2,500 behind in the rent. To maximize my income I should just evict. But because I spent years attending Catholic schools and having instilled in me some idea that the rich have an obligation to help the poor and really the mortgage on his house they live in is less than I make trading a couple calendar spreads a week, what am I going to do? Really evict them in February in Illinois in the middle of a polar vortex. Shit I'll eat it and eventually they will get caught up. Maybe a universal basic income solves all these problems in a much more efficient way. Why did he fall down the stairs not me?
I personally wouldn't align with either party in our system but having traveled quite a bit in my life and spent time in a number of places I'm always amazed at the fear that any social program is a wholesale endorsement of a march to communism. Healthcare is an example. Most modern democracies view healthcare as a right and develop close to a one payer system. Yes its sounds like socialism. But we have the same with public education, fire fighters, police, military etc. We socialize these. Isn't it reasonable to just decide some things are for the common good and perhaps as a society our taxes pay for these things. My friends in Europe may not have giant sized incomes but the general basket of the programs available for the common good are much higher. They don't worry about going broke from medical expenses or sky rocketing tuition for their children. In some ways they may have more social mobility not less.
I'm proud of America - happy to be here - but I fear that sometimes the inheritance of the libertarian attitude of do it alone warps our thinking and doesn't lead to better outcomes that other places have already figured out. No one ever really does it alone. New companies ship their products on roads paid for by taxes and often on research started with taxes at public universities. Nothing wrong with this we are by our nature social creatures who live in community.
I'm a papist distributivist to show my true colors and believe the essential building block of society is the family. Family in the middle of individual and community. The right favors the individual and the left favors the community. In the middle is the family. Truth might always be somewhat in the middle. How do we keep what we are great at - innovation, a strong a work ethic, an optimism that solves problems, while not retreating into our own ideological camps and listening to the echo chamber of our own selected news and media pieces. Where is real debate, discussion, conversion etc.?
You've written a thoughtful and thorough post on what I see as a problem we have in America caused by the politicization of certain words such as socialism, liberal, etc. This has caused no end of trouble. I hope others here will take the time to read your post in its entirety. Thank you for your post.
Please see also, below, my brief comment on "David's" post.
Sometimes the fundamental nature of an economy that runs on its own sovereign currency isn't fully appreciated. At the minimum, the government must spend into the economy as much as it taxes back out, or relatively soon the economy will be forced into recession and eventually, if that trend continues, a depression and deflation. One can pay down an excessive deficit but paying down the essential deficit is dangerous. To prevent deflation, the amount of outside money, i.e., the money the government spends into the economy minus the amount taxed back out, must increase with GDP. An economy that is growing due to population and productivity growth must produce deficits that at least match this growth, or the economy will slide into recession.
Many thanks.
This hasn't happened yet, but there is still plenty of time left in this year.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending-to-gdp
Government Spending in the United States increased to 44 percent of the GDP in 2020 from 35.68 percent in 2019. source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Actual Previous Highest Lowest Dates Unit Frequency
44.00 35.68 44.00 33.40 1970 - 2020 percent Yearly
Absolutely agree. Every European ever to visit the states tells exactely what you did after their return.
The U.S. Government borrows the money it spends.
What you wrote makes zero sense in practical terms or even economic theory.
And expanding economy can handle a little government overhead and still grow.
---
I quote one of sentences below... it is the most non sensical thing I have read in a long time..
An economy can grow independent of deficit spending.
Deficit spending may be useful or it may not be.
It would depend on what is being spent, where it is being spent... and what the cost of the borrowing is in terms of interest and crowding out.
"An economy that is growing due to population and productivity growth must produce deficits that at least match this growth, or the economy will slide into recession"
b. deflation is independent of the size of the deficit. The govt borrows the money. There are times when spending may help prevent deflation... but the FED decreases and expands the money supply. The US Govt's spending is borrowed.
What you wrote makes zero sense in practical terms or even economic theory.
And expanding economy can handle a little government overhead and still grow.
---
I quote one of sentences below... it is the most non sensical thing I have read in a long time..
An economy can grow independent of deficit spending.
Deficit spending may be useful or it may not be.
It would depend on what is being spent, where it is being spent... and what the cost of the borrowing is in terms of interest and crowding out.
"An economy that is growing due to population and productivity growth must produce deficits that at least match this growth, or the economy will slide into recession"
b. deflation is independent of the size of the deficit. The govt borrows the money. There are times when spending may help prevent deflation... but the FED decreases and expands the money supply. The US Govt's spending is borrowed.
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.
Annual growth rate from highest to lowest (1st row: non-farm jobs; 2nd row GDP
- Feb. 2, 2021
#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
In statistical calculations, you should not trust any sample size under 30. There is way too much randomness with small samples.