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
First, when did I say I support Bush, or that I voted for him?
I merely agree with his tax cut.
I'm curious as to where the economic growth is coming from, if not from cuts? I don't see another reason, and even democrats have occasionally begrdgingly admitted that the cuts are working, and that that will be what Bush can point to when the next election rolls around.
I firmly believe that cutting taxes will help. I think he's overspending, and that's what's hurting.
|Date:||November 18th, 2003 09:10 pm (UTC)|| |
depends on what you mean by working
To know whether or not it is working you need to ask:
1)Is this structural or temporary
2)what the the cost/benefit
3)why did the growth happen
1)18 months ago, preliminary estimates put first-quarter 2002 growth at 5.8 percent. It was later revised downward. The next quarter growth dropped to 1.3%. The high growth from that quarter was a blip not representative of a structural change. Despite the impressive growth last quarter, the number of jobs actually fell
As William Gale of the Brookings Institution puts it, "Almost any tax cut or spending increase would succeed in boosting a sluggish economy if the Federal Reserve Board follows an accommodative monetary policy. . . . The key question is, therefore, not whether the proposals provide any short-term stimulus, but whether they are the most effective way to provide stimulus."
They are now building an enormous deficit (5 trillion before baby boomers start costing) Which is not based on temporary stimulus but long term. This is exactly the wrong type of deficit to have. And the the tax cut is putting money into the hands of the rich (who aren't very effective at providing stimulus).
Do you think the path chosen for stimulus is a good path, if so why?
3)You are curious as to why the growth happened. And, there is some good news. But, the good news happened despite not because of their policies. The good news is that final demand — demand excluding changes in inventories — grew faster than G.D.P. There is bad news too. I won't go into it unless you want to hear it.
Voting conservative isn't a problem. But, voting for the Republicans is. They are not conservative. Their current batch of conservative policy appears to be independant of the economy and the restrictions of the federal budget. And, voting for reckless fake conservatives is worse than voting for a liberal who listens to economists. The economists will keep the liberal from making stupid mistakes.
Look at what Bush did in Texas. Compare to what Dean did in New Hampshire. Which state had a better budget?
1) the number of jobs is not always the best indication of a healthy economy.
2) I now own a house. I bought a car three days ago for 0% financing. Both those purchases indicate that those of us with jobs are spending, which is a Good Thing (TM). There is a problem with customer confidence, though, and that causes us to think about saving more, too.
3) Never lived in Texas. Never lived in NH. I've been in each state, um, once. How the hell should I know which has the better economy?
|Date:||November 19th, 2003 12:38 am (UTC)|| |
fiscal policy like tax cuts is only short term
I think I am getting where the misunderstanding is at.
Yes, the tax cut can cause people to buy cars, etc. But the effect is only short term. Tax cuts, creating fake jobs, etc. are temporary fiscal effects.
Fiscal and monetary policies do _not_ work. These policies temporarily change things and then things return back to an equilbrium.
From the president's very own economists regarding the tax cut
February 4, 2003:
"Stronger GDP growth would lead to an estimated 510,000
new jobs expected to be created as a result of the proposal over the course of 2003. Another 891,000 new jobs would be created in 2004."
"On average over end-2002 to end-2007, job creation as a
result of the package would be 140000 higher than otherwise."
They agree with me. They estimated that 1.4 million jobs would have been created from their tax plan and then about 1.2 million jobs would bleed away and by 2007 you end up with a modest gain of 140,000.
It turns out they predicted very very wrong. The temporary fiscal stimulus was _much_ weaker (which makes sense since the rich help only a little). And the bleeding hasn't even happened yet.
The fundamental problem is that the short term relief is going to causes serious long term economic growth problems. They did not address the 4 paths to growth. The manta was always tax cut, tax cut, tax cut.
Find an intro macro econ book and look at the chapter on economic growth. A policy that sacrifices long term growth for short term stimulus is the worst policy you can have.