"Republicans, over all, recall the late 1950s and the mid-1980s most fondly. Sample explanations: “Reagan.” “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.” The distribution of Trump supporters’ greatest years is somewhat similar to the Republican trend, but more widely dispersed over the last 70 years. Supporters of Ted Cruz picked best years that were similar to the party’s trend over all. The sample of John Kasich supporters in the survey was too small to detect any patterns." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... in/481167/
This is fascinating to me. Republicans almost completely choose years in which Democrats held power, and describe them as “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values.”
We all know Republicans can't govern, and GOP supporters are well known for their contradictions, but this is rather stark. Also, consider this:
Note how Republicans opinion about the Federal Government vastly changes based on who wins the Presidency - yet, generally, the House and Senate stay the same, but certainly, the entire Federal Government generally stays the same, as the Government employees and laws are pretty much the same year to year. This suggests to me Republicans react to the figurehead, and have no understanding of how government works.
This graph shows how Republicans have become more extremist suddenly, rushing to extreme Conservatism while most people are more Moderate. And this graph ends in 2011 - it's gotten worse.
So, when was America Great? Was it when Democrats were in charge - and is it time to return to “Economy was booming.” “No wars!” “Life was simpler.” “Strong family values”?
Special challenge: Please post a graph that adds to your comment. Let's try to get this filled with charts and graphs!
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
America was at that point doing well for making Americans well-off, arguably at the expense of everyone else. One good example is that immigration restrictions were draconian, and of course, that raises wages.
Now, most sources will say immigration actually raises wages, because, according to the Cato institute, the idea that there are a fixed number of jobs is naive. Immigrants, they say, increase demand for goods and services - thus opening opportunities to fill that demand, in other words, creating a job - for every job they take away.
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall- ... -skill-mix It is not that immigration can never affect native-born wages. But it has the potential to impact wages not when it just raises the absolute number of workers (which is why the two models presented above are wrong), but rather when it affects the relative numbers of different kinds of workers. Workers only compete with other workers who have similar skills. Immigrants who, say, tend to work as construction laborers do not drive down the wages of lawyers or economists (or pundits at anti-immigration think tanks, for that matter). In fact, workers with different skills often complement, rather than compete with one another; they make each other more productive. For example, adding a secretary to handle paperwork might free a doctor to spend more time with her patients.
Here is the model Cato presents as correct.
However, Cato's model is also naive. They think in terms of everyone being a producer - a value to everyone else not in their specific industry. While they admit that immigration reduces wages for unskilled labour, this is not all it does. We add a few construction workers, and this is good for everyone who is not a construction worker. We add a few cooks, and see, this is good for everyone who is not a cook. Overall, see, it is good for everyone.
What they miss is what we never add: Wealth holders, property owners, people who make money from already having money. The boon of immigration is always distributed to them, because they do no job at all, so it goes without saying that they're not going to be outcompeted. Thus, for every labourer added, the wealth of the wealthy only increases.
If everyone both laboured and consumed, adding more labourers would hurt no one, exactly as Cato's model says.
But who benefits are property owners, who demand more productivity and pay people less.
There is also a very simple economic process when the lower and middle classes get more money: they actually buy things.
Conservatives believe in a form of Trickle-Down that says if you give wealthy people money, they create factories to make things. That may be somewhat true - but only to an extent. First, they create safe havens for their money. When they are taxed very low, they don't feel the need to invest in factories, as businesses are risky. So they will find shelters for their money. When taxes are higher than the risk of starting a business, wealthy people invest more - they diversify. (It's a main reason for the collapse of NYC in the 80s - Reagans tax cuts made investors pull their money out. They could make billions in safer investments, and could afford to lose a little due to inflation - rather than risking large loses by investing in real estate. As things got out of kilter, there were other economic policies that helped protect the wealthy and caused real estate to explode in a spectacular bubble. Don't worry - the Millionaires and Billionaires were fine.
When wealthy people have lots of cash on hand, they don't invest in businesses. They buy art, classic cars, property, and other luxuries that do very little to increase the wealth of the lower classes.
With income distribution (if we were to have 90% taxes on anything made over $100M dollars, say), then we'd be able to give money to poorer people to do what? Buy toilet paper, food, shoes, etc. That is, they'd start buying what factories make. They'd put that money straight back into circulation, and if done right, they have the extra income to do preventative care, start businesses, etc.
Instead, Conservatives believe the money they make is their own to spend lavishly - they don't appreciate that lower paid workers, such as teachers, cops, government workers, military, etc. contribute to a stable country that allows them to make so much money, especially if they are unscrupulous in getting it.
References:
The principle behind Obama administration's actions was referred to as trickle-up economics,[14] but the term bottom-up economics was also used for it.[15] On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession.[16] The act included increased federal spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks and incentives, and direct assistance to individuals.[17] Democrats overwhelmingly supported this measure, while only a few Senate Republicans supported the law.
The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimated that the ARRA would positively impact the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and employment, with primary impact between 2009 and 2011. It projected an increase in the GDP of between 1.4 and 3.8% by late 2009, 1.1 and 3.3% by late 2010, and 0.4 and 1.3% by late 2011, as well as a decrease of between zero and 0.2% beyond 2014.[18] The impact to employment would be an increase of 0.8 million to 2.3 million by last-2009, an increase of 1.2 million to 3.6 million by late 2010, an increase of 0.6 million to 1.9 million by late 2011, and declining increases in subsequent years.[18]
You'll love this one:
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:42 am
Instead, Conservatives believe the money they make is their own to spend lavishly - they don't appreciate that lower paid workers, such as teachers, cops, government workers, military, etc. contribute to a stable country that allows them to make so much money, especially if they are unscrupulous in getting it.
This. (Except that it's more emblematic of Libertarians.)
The kind of survival-of-the-fittest economy they think they believe in, includes the idea that anyone can just hit you and take your stuff. It might be morally wrong, but sometimes it does happen, and protecting the rich from those outcomes costs money - other peoples' money.
I for one think the only way to show this kind of people that they don't in fact believe in that, is to let them opt out of paying taxes.
