November 14th, 2003
|05:34 pm - Politics|
So why doesn't my religion get me onto the Green bandwagon? Why am I unconcerned with loads of liberal or conservative causes?
Because I think that tying politics to religion defines you in a very narrow worldview.
Why don't I fight sweatshops? Why do I support free trade? What gives with voting Republican most of the time?
I admit it. I'm a conservative. Sorry. But I should note that I vote for what I think is important. I place a much higher value on the economy than on social issues. Good economies lead to social justice. Bad economies lead to tyranny.
So I tend to vote conservatively. That's usually the group that gets an economy on track. Bush's tax cut is working wonders.
But I don't forget the social issues. I'm socially liberal, believing that everyone gets a shot, and that money for education is a good thing. I think everyone's sexuality has a place in society, and rights are important. But I think the economy is more important.
Increases in military spending help the economy. Increases in education hurt it. Cut spending, not jobs, assholes. Eliminate minimum wage (minimum wage increases create inflation and increase the cost of living by about 5%, whereas the average minimum wage increase is about 1-2%).
Good economies are hotbeds of social liberalism. Poor economies are hotbeds of religious conservativism. Disposable income creates leisure to protest, to get an education.
My rant for the day. Time to go home and see how this turns out on Monday. :) Have fun.
Current Music: "Christmas in the Caribbean", -JB
|Date:||November 18th, 2003 01:45 am (UTC)|| |
capitalism needs science
Captialism has been shown to be effective hence your conservatism.
However, science has also shown to be very effective. In fact, both
are needed together.
This administration is very secretive and sound bite compilant but not science compliant. The government needs to be open about what it does so understanding exists.
They only want good news and are getting away with it. Examine what they mean by "1st admendment zones". Examine how Bush cut a lot of SEC funding despite Enron. SEC provides science about accounting of corporations. It is essential for a stock market. Examine how the tax code was written to supply a sweet spot for a misleading sound bite to be consumed by the news. Examine how they flip between median and average. Examine how the press is prevented from photographing wounded Americans and coffins. Examine how our mercernaries are not counted in deaths for Iraq.
Here is an example of scientific thinking.
In 2004, the govt. will run up about $1500 of debt per family. How much of that tax cut did you see? That $1500 is an average, how is it distributed among the income groups.
How many jobs could have been created if this debt was used to directly create jobs (things like homeland security would be a good candidate).
2,000,000 jobs *$30,000=$60 billion
So, they could have wiped out temporarily the unemployment problem by creating jobs directly. People with these jobs would be buying things, helping the economy. How many jobs did the $500 billion debt?
Do you even know how the government spends it's money? That if you make bugetary decisions you need to account for future expenses
as well as current cash flow. And despite ideology, certain hard desisions will have to be made based off the fact that only about 15% of the budget is discretionary and future expenses are pretty much guaranteed to increase.
I didn't get anything from the first tax cut. I won't get much from the next.
And Government jobs aren't the answer. Never have been, never will be. Creating an environment that includes extra disposable income that can be invested into new services or goods is what's important.
It looks like you're calling me an idiot. I'm curious if that's the case. . .
|Date:||November 18th, 2003 09:43 pm (UTC)|| |
4 paths to growth
I am sorry if I am kinda calling you an idiot. I am more frustrated with these guys passing themselves off and free-trade and conservative. That frustration may bleed into my writing.
Here is some basic macro-econ. You do not hear talk like this from the current Republicans. I will vote for any repub or democrat who talks about the difference between temporary fiscal policy and understood paths to economic growth.
Here is a little of accepted economic theory. There are 4 basic ways to provide economic growth:
(from a textbook I have here)
1)growth in labor force
2)investment in human capital: education and on the job experience
3)investment in physical capital: factories, machines, transportation
Some of this change can involve jobs: hiring teachers, fixing roads, investing in research. Saying creating jobs are never the answer is too strong a statement. Unless you are prepared to counter intro macro-economics.
Anything that is not among the above 4 is most likely temporary.
There's a tenant of macroeconomics that goes something like
Government monetary/fiscal policies have very little permanent effect on employment. Any fiscal attempt to create jobs is met by
contractionary monetary policy that DESTROYS an equal number of jobs
to keep unemployment at its natural rate. Things like interest rates
or increase in inflation eat away at those gains. Only true
productivity increases can long term affect employment.
For further reading:
The Evidence on Marginal Tax Rate Reductions
Marginal tax rate reductions could affect a variety of activities
important to the economy, including work behavior, saving and
investment, and risk-taking. The available evidence, however,
generally suggests that any positive effects would be quite modest.
The historical evidence, for example, is not consistent with the
belief that taxes have a large effect on economic growth. There is no
clear link between periods of low taxes and high growth. The
strongest period of growth in U.S. history was the 1960s — when the
top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. More recently, as
discussed below, economic growth in the 1990s was quite strong,
despite the 1993 increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31
percent to 39.6 percent.(6)
More detailed economic research also finds no evidence that countries
with lower tax rates or higher levels of government spending
experience stronger economic growth.