2020 US Election (Part Two)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve seen this song and dance before. I don’t see any correlation between approval ratings and re-electability. George W. Bush had a low approval rating (floating from a high of 53% to 46% approval rating) in 2004 and still managed defeat Kerry on November.

George W. Bush had a good economy though, Trump doesn't. Just ask George W. Bush's father what happens to re-election bids when the economy is bad!

A few months ago I thought the election was too close to call, now I have definitely started to believe that Trump could be ousted. However I still would't bet on it. In 2016 there was a late swing in the last 2 weeks, and lot can change between now and November.
 
Bush had a good economy and people also thought he was 'good at economy'. I seriously expect people to think "Republicans will be better an economying us out of this mess we're in" in 2020. Until people can intuitively dismiss Trickle Down conceptually (rather than just disbelieving in it, in a partisan fashion), that risk remains.
 
Until people can intuitively dismiss Trickle Down conceptually (rather than just disbelieving in it, in a partisan fashion), that risk remains.

Good point
And not for this thread
What would be good examples of trickle down NOT working that fall within the area of RL reference and experience of laymen commoners ?
I think believing that "trickle down" works is much more in the RL reference of laymen commoners.
When "papa" got a salary raise the first "trickle down" is going out for dinner with the family and seen from theperspective of the kids perhaps higher pocket money.
And yes... national money is different than household money... but that is too abstract.
 
The thing is that the Chicago school has a heck of a time flitting between fiat currency and real goods. Whole aspects of Supply Side economics works just fine if you replace "dollars" with "apples".

Unfortunately, all of the 'disproofs' of Trump's Trickle Down failing involve "maths"
- Trump's Deficits were higher (in GDP terms) than the Growth Rate, the opposite of sustainable
- The median income went up slower than the deficits, which means you'd be better off if Trump just handed you the money he borrowed in your name
- The income at the Top went up faster than both Growth AND the Deficits (so, they 'owned' more of the US than when Trump started)
 
"Trickle down" has visibly failed, no one can pretend otherwise any longer. Trump was doing everything he could to keep up the fiction until after the election, but the economic effects of the virus (compounded by his own mismanagement of the response) are acting very strongly against him. But the man is still politically crafty: the social division and fear may get him enough support to win, if no one else mobilizes the discontented.

I'm thinking that the United States are doomed. They need to change but the political choice available is between two incapable leaders and platforms. No change from either. Four more years of this slide will bring civil war, however brief. This was the year for new candidates outside the two parties with an agenda denouncing both, when one not just could win but was absolutely necessary. Can someone else still run against both and get any attention? I know that there are always two or three from minor parties, but those don't even run in all states do they? Don't make a real effort to win?
 
Is he considering Taylor Swift as a potential running mate?
 
"Trickle down" has visibly failed, no one can pretend otherwise any longer.
Not to the man in the street, and it's a problem of meme-crafting, because teaching the failure takes a lot of uphilll work. Unpacking fiat from real and then distinguishing investment from rent-seeking is so much work..

Talking points defending Trump's economy: deficits were necessary to fix specific problems, government over-spending continues to be a large portion of the deficits, unemployment rates were falling, and median wages were rising.

Those are the things defenders will talk about, and they need counter one-liners that will trigger dissonance. I think we're super-lucky that people haven't interpreted the coronavirus as an exogenous shock that waylaid a function plan. In Alberta, we recently doubled-down on selling oil as cheaply as possible, and the oil-price shock was seen as "well, their plan would have worked, so we can't really blame them for something outside their power".
 
Lolol Kayne West has joined the race! :hammer: :hammer2:

I was going to say "who's Kayne West", but then remembered it was some black musician who seemed to like Trump very much. So I have to wonder: its this serious at all? Because if it is then it would be an attempt at drawing votes that might go to Biden but not Trump.
 
Talking points defending Trump's economy: deficits were necessary to fix specific problems, government over-spending continues to be a large portion of the deficits, unemployment rates were falling, and median wages were rising.

The unemployment numbers are obviously false: 32 million people receiving unemployment benefits but the BLS there claims that less than 20 million are unemployment? I believe that the point where the reality of economic failure cannot be hidden any longer, too many people are suffering from it.
But the government did offer unemployment benefits, gave some money directly to people. Though less that 1/10th of what it spend on holding up the value of the paper wealth held by just a few? If Trump extends that until the election... yes, he may get away with claiming that his economic management wasn't bad, it was just the virus...
The problem for him remains that the virus is turning into a disaster in the US, compared to many other countries. And Trump is on the record belittling the problem. We have our fair share of fools in government here in Europe, but they did at least act to contain it.
 
“Trickle-down” is really more of a talking point, so I don’t see much validity in arguing it other than its use in arguments which I don’t find persuasive anyways.

Political euphemisms/buzzwords, George W. Bush had “compassionate conservatism,” Hillary had “inclusive capitalism,” which all meant... huh? Baffling newspeak.

I would group it into three main areas of tax, expenditure, and monetary. This covers the basics: how much money the government should collect, how much it should spend and where, and how much should exist at all.

Kanye West announced with the #2020vision hashtag, which is so trite and uninspired, it almost works in his favor. Maybe he can balance it out with his personality? I don’t get it. Anyway, maybe he could be serious? He’s black Donald Trump. Or maybe Donald Trump is white Kanye West?

I am not a crackpot.
 
“Trickle-down” is really more of a talking point
It's not so much a talking point as the summary of a theory: rich people make the investments that creates jobs and goods, and when rich people have a surplus they buy stuff that lets people get money themselves, which we can then spend to make our lives better.

People who vote conservative intuitively understand the theory and I'd daresay the average centrist holds many elements of it as fact.
 
It's not so much a talking point as the summary of a theory: rich people make the investments that creates jobs and goods, and when rich people have a surplus they buy stuff that lets people get money themselves, which we can then spend to make our lives better.
I would call this an accurate summation of the idea, but I think the popular belief around the term is that rich individuals go out and buy consumer goods, not make capital investments.

So when someone says “trickle-down,” they think of some guy buying a yacht and then the yacht-builders get paid. At least that’s the way I’ve heard it said back to me. I just found the term didn’t help explain anything and certainly didn’t sound persuasive.
 
The unemployment numbers are obviously false: 32 million people receiving unemployment benefits but the BLS there claims that less than 20 million are unemployment? I believe that the point where the reality of economic failure cannot be hidden any longer, too many people are suffering from it.

Well, to draw unemployment benefits you don't have to be straight-up unemployed, you can also collect benefits if for example your employer cuts your hours.

“Trickle-down” is really more of a talking point

the average centrist holds many elements of it as fact.

Exactly: trickle-down economics is often associated with Republicans, but Democratic economic policy quite often boils down to the same formula of "give rich people money and they will invest, leading to growth, leading to everyone having more money"
 
Last edited:
Americans are Sisyphus-style scratching on the boulder. The boulder of seemingly plausible models mixed with outrageous lies shielded and wrapped up in complexity, dressed up as “economic theory”. The overblown proportion of trust Americans put on Economics as a science…

99% of “Economics” talked about in the news is not even a science, it is business, business tied thought-experiments and propaganda. Taught at “top” Business schools setting standards but live off donations to provide new acolytes to the church of trickle-up-finance.

Meanwhile inside the meat and bones of America – another bi-partisan $5 Tr bailout and socialism for Billionaires telling millionaires to tell the middle class to hate poor people who in frustration hate on minorities.

Kiss arse upwards and choke face downwards capitalism. Upheld by a national pride in “values” of a 40-year object short-term gain and long-term failure in economic policy. Why not lower taxes some more to stimulate growth in an economic downturn like this? Cut some more social programs? We may need another trillion-dollar bailout to sure up the owners of the cruise ship industry, preferably without oversight and of course with no silly strings attached like securing the employment of the wage dependent employees. With 24% actual unemployment – supply is basically endless.

And this is what you get with American bi-partisan centrism. A centrism so radically far right economically it rubs and push the side of the global Overton window. You, Americans, have had only one actual centrist in the game of illusions and delusions that is the American presidential elections: Bernie Sanders. The half-arsed support he received from Democrats in this thread is a real shame.
 
Exactly: trickle-down economics is often associated with Republicans, but Democratic economic policy quite often boils down to the same formula of "give rich people money and they will invest, leading to growth, leading to everyone having more money"

What happens in the UK is that the rich typically invest in buying up land and property.
They then demand high price rents or leave their property empty to appreciate in value.

This prices many poorer people out of the home purchase market meaning they spend
more money renting and thereby decreasing the amount that they have themselves left
to invest themselves or spend on other things to keep the general economy going.

The system thereby continually transfers wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
It is propped up by quantitative easing, low taxes and selective low interest rates.

The establishment here is absolutely terrified that it will all end. One of the reasons why
the UK conservative government offered resettlement rights to three million Hong Hong
chinese is that it thinks that they will being in a large influx of capital to feed the system.
 
The establishment here is absolutely terrified that it will all end. One of the reasons why
the UK conservative government offered resettlement rights to three million Hong Hong
chinese is that it thinks that they will being in a large influx of capital to feed the system.

I hadn't thought about that, but now that you mention it it's obvious.

The insanity in all this is that the game obviously cannot go on for much longer, influx or no influx of capital, from the chinese or the central banks.Dispossessing the vast majority of the population leads to revolt, including those with the guns. Then it's game over.
 
I couldn't decide if this belonged to clown car or election, but since it's about voting

In Mississippi blacks and people are still two separate categories for many.
 
So when someone says “trickle-down,” they think of some guy buying a yacht and then the yacht-builders get paid. At least that’s the way I’ve heard it said back to me. I just found the term didn’t help explain anything and certainly didn’t sound persuasive.
I appreciate the input, because I nearly always conflate Supply Side stimulus with Trickle-Down theory. Trump was definitely pushing a Supply Side agenda, despite all wealth migrating upwards already, and it really showed during QE (Given that he was proposing QEshortly after his tax cuts started going through, it's almost like he was an ultra-rich property holder that owed money ...)

What's interesting about your version is that it is a Demand-Side argument. "People will spend money" is the essence of it and honestly I'm happy to sell hot dogs to either teachers or trust-fund college kids, a dollar is a dollar and I need dollars.

The 2nd part of Trickle-Down is an embracing of the idea that the government is 'taking money away' from people when they collect taxes, so the yacht owner is getting less money taken away and therefore will buy more hotdogs for his yacht parties. I have no quibble with this heuristic, even. I think of taxes as a user-fee, but this doesn't gain any traction with the muggles.

It just doesn't work in practicality, because the rich don't just purchase goods and services with their extra dollars. And they don't just make investments with their savings. A significant portion of their savings is devoted to either finding arbitrage or purchasing rent-seeking assets. On an individual levels, this is fine (it's what everyone would do given the chance, even if they're charitable).

And then we're back full circle as to why Trickle-Down doesn't actually work (and why it's so hard to ruin people's intuitions of). The yacht owner is going to look at opportunities to buy my hot-dog stand so that he can rent it back to me before he's going to buy more hotdogs from me. And if he cannot find a good deal, he'll hoard legal tender until the opportunity presents itself.
 
Trickle-down basically isn't even debated in US politics, Trump ran a decidedly less "trickle-down" campaign that proposed protectionism. But still not nearly enough to be a departure from the norm, cause the default is trickle-down

Edit: Seems especially late to talk about it in the 2020 election thread when both remaining candidates have similar economic policies
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom