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 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.