What scares me about that is moderates are supposed to be the ones winning. When extremists on either end become the only electable options, the stability of the government in question becomes uncertain and political violence becomes more prevalent, as we are seeing right now.
2020 US Election (Part Two)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
What scares me about that is moderates are supposed to be the ones winning. When extremists on either end become the only electable options, the stability of the government in question becomes uncertain and political violence becomes more prevalent, as we are seeing right now.
Moderates are only supposed to win, because the country's economy is supposed to be stable, with plentiful, stable jobs with benefits and job security. People are supposed to be mostly middle-class with access to plentiful comforts like vacations and ways to enrich the lives of their families, and raise their quality of life. The moderates are falling short on making people feel like the country is providing them with what they want, whether that be healthcare, jobs, opportunities, education, security, etc. So when people think the moderates are failing, for whatever reason, they begin to polarize. That is where we are now.
Last edited:
I'll add, that the loop we seem to be in now, is that more moderate (Democrats nowadays) candidates win, things start to stabilize and improve, people are dissatisfied with the speed that things are improving, and/or feel that the improvements are not benefitting them to the extent that they want, and they elect more polarized candidates (Republicans right now), who, for lack of a better word, loot the economy and screw things up, then moderate Democrats are elected to "fix" things, and the loop starts over again.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
This is exactly why I ended my last post here by pointing out I was a Bernie fan.
They not only loot the economy and screw things up but also manage to successfully pin their failings on the Democrats. I saw some graphs/analysis on how the stock market has fared under different administrations going back to Carter and it was pretty clear that the Democrats beat the GOP in that measure consistently. Yet the electorate at large think the GOP is 'better for the economy' and use the stock market as evidence of this. I don't think the stock market is a great indicator of how the overall economy is doing to begin with, but lots of people do.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,146
While I do definitely agree the myth of "Republicans being good for the economy," is utter trash, the looters are not JUST in the GOP, and to carry that viewpoint sincerely is going to put you in a position of being a big sucker!
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
On the balance of things, the toll excessive regulations extract from the economy pails to the damage of a trillion dollar tax cut for the rich in a time of plenty. The nature and scale of the 'looting' is just not comparable and it's suspect because the average Republican will say, "Democrats are destroying jobs!" when what they really mean is, "Democrats will not let the meat packing plants maim you and will not let trillion-dollar corporations force you to work for $7.25/hr without any benefits".
If you want to increase all the share prices, lowering the Central Bank interest rate is a powerfull tool.
The lower the interest, the less is discounted of the profits of more far away years in the Net Present Value calculation of the value of the companies, the market cap, the share price.
The accompanying effect is that share prices become more dependent on profits of more far away years and will become more volatile.
The lowering by the Fed in March of the interest rate was a direct response to the Covid crisis, securing that profit dips in the companies in the years 2020 and 2021 would be compensated by the hugher weight in the NPV, in the market cap by later years.
=> the Stock markets will be great when elections are there and even not that much affected by a long tail at high infection level of the current wave
=> people with shares and people believing that stock markets are the true yardstick of an economy will feel fine when the election is there.
Last edited:
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,418
Lowering rates is so 20th century. Now the central bank outright buys stuff to support (keep increasing, actually) prices!
Though the real reason why the stock market keeps going up in the US is that the wealthy there just keep speculating with their increasing incomes, as they suck the positive side of financial funds out of the economy. The greater the debt burden of the plebs, the greater the assets of the wealthy: accounting 101. The existence of do many billionaires requires a huge level of indebtedness in the economy, their assets are the counterparty. It's all going wonderfully per the post 2008 plans, which makes it laughable to say that the democrats fixed anything: the democrats handling of the financial crisis of 2008 was to straightened the debt servitude situation in the US. And the central bank only has to support that increasing debt burden: zero interest and buying debt instruments whenever it looks like there is a selling panic. For the party to go on the plebs must continue to be ground into greater debt.
Silly europeans with their austerity fetish didn't get it in 2008. In the logic of late financial capitalism it's not enough to hold interest at zero: people must be squeezed and forced into borrowing, not into paying debts. Only by forcing the population to take more and more debt can other portions of the population accumulated assets, the goal of the capitalism game. Which is why the big party is in the US stock market, not in Europe's.
The bottom 50% of the US population have "net negative wealth". This doesn't just arise naturally, it takes a lot of institutional effort, government engineering, to produce and keep in place such a situation! @Patine is right, it's not just one party doing it.
Though the real reason why the stock market keeps going up in the US is that the wealthy there just keep speculating with their increasing incomes, as they suck the positive side of financial funds out of the economy. The greater the debt burden of the plebs, the greater the assets of the wealthy: accounting 101. The existence of do many billionaires requires a huge level of indebtedness in the economy, their assets are the counterparty. It's all going wonderfully per the post 2008 plans, which makes it laughable to say that the democrats fixed anything: the democrats handling of the financial crisis of 2008 was to straightened the debt servitude situation in the US. And the central bank only has to support that increasing debt burden: zero interest and buying debt instruments whenever it looks like there is a selling panic. For the party to go on the plebs must continue to be ground into greater debt.
Silly europeans with their austerity fetish didn't get it in 2008. In the logic of late financial capitalism it's not enough to hold interest at zero: people must be squeezed and forced into borrowing, not into paying debts. Only by forcing the population to take more and more debt can other portions of the population accumulated assets, the goal of the capitalism game. Which is why the big party is in the US stock market, not in Europe's.
The bottom 50% of the US population have "net negative wealth". This doesn't just arise naturally, it takes a lot of institutional effort, government engineering, to produce and keep in place such a situation! @Patine is right, it's not just one party doing it.
Last edited:
You should study up on how the stock market works and who is buying what.
In 1965 80% of all stocks were owned by individuals and the remainder by institutional or foreign investors.
In 2015
- Individuals owned 25%
- IRAs and Retirement plans 30%
- Defined benefit Plans 15%
- Non Profits, Insurance cos, and foreigners 30%
Since 2010 the debt burden on households has come down from 1.2:1 to 1:1 when compared to income. Folks have been reducing their debt or making more money for the past 10 years.
You raise the question of why are bottom half of the population poor? To begin many of those at the bottom are not in debt; they are just poor and to get them out of poverty is not an easy task. The rest certainly are not wealthy and may live on the margins of poverty. They are the debtors you are talking about. You question should be about why they are unable to build even minimal wealth to get them through a crisis let alone build security. The answer is not easy. Neither are the solutions.
Ironsided
Flower of happiness
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,267
"Not an easy task…" It’s harder in America because Americans seemingly do not want to help other struggling Americans. They want to waive their little flags and make pretend patriots crying crocodile tears when their neighbour’s sons and daughters come home in a coffin from another foreign colonial effort to secure more riches for the already wealthy. But that is about the extent of it.
"The answer is not easy…" A safe and proven way to prevent most poor and exposed people from falling through society is to provide a public universal lowest-level-platform of basic services and programs. People run into hardship in life. If you grow up in a poor or broken home, you are more vulnerable to begin with. Healthcare is the best and most obvious example in America and in a pandemic. Not only does universal coverage make everyone safer from the virus today; according to a Yale study M4A will save Americans $425 Bn. and 70 000 lives a year outside the pandemic. It also puts the power of healthcare coverage with the employee instead of with the employer, a small but important step to foster a more level playing field for more fair wages. A new “new deal” would also do far more for all levels of the economy than bailing out failing non-essential businesses without oversight. Today you have bi-partisan support for the latter and no support for the former. That certainly makes it “not easy”.
"The answer is not easy…" A safe and proven way to prevent most poor and exposed people from falling through society is to provide a public universal lowest-level-platform of basic services and programs. People run into hardship in life. If you grow up in a poor or broken home, you are more vulnerable to begin with. Healthcare is the best and most obvious example in America and in a pandemic. Not only does universal coverage make everyone safer from the virus today; according to a Yale study M4A will save Americans $425 Bn. and 70 000 lives a year outside the pandemic. It also puts the power of healthcare coverage with the employee instead of with the employer, a small but important step to foster a more level playing field for more fair wages. A new “new deal” would also do far more for all levels of the economy than bailing out failing non-essential businesses without oversight. Today you have bi-partisan support for the latter and no support for the former. That certainly makes it “not easy”.
Lexicus
Deity
K so first of all it is absolutely true that the poor financial position of people at the bottom is driven mainly by debt.
This chart is from 2016, I cannot find any more recent data (yet) because all the Google results for at least a dozen pages are about how to reduce your personal DTI ratio. But I doubt the pattern of the ratios and income quintiles has changed very much.
(source)
Now it is absolutely correct what inno is saying, and these arguments are reflected by trends in various national statistics, but the US economy shifted starting in the late sixties and really accelerating through the 70s and finishing in the 80s, from being an economy where consumer spending was underwritten by high levels of saving, to an economy where almost all of the growth in consumer spending for most of the population came from consumer debt. This fact is not unrelated to the increasing disparity of wealth that has taken place during the same time frame. No one is saying that this is the whole story, of course.
Now your last two sentences are really only true if we consider all the money and property of the rich to be inviolate. Since that is the practical reality in the US right now you are right, but our job is to change that. If you don't want to live under a dictatorship run by QAnon lunatics, anyway. If you don't care, you don't care.
Zardnaar
Deity
Interesting dic
Interesting fico on Netflix about it. Basically the financial sector took over vs manufacturing.
K so first of all it is absolutely true that the poor financial position of people at the bottom is driven mainly by debt.
This chart is from 2016, I cannot find any more recent data (yet) because all the Google results for at least a dozen pages are about how to reduce your personal DTI ratio. But I doubt the pattern of the ratios and income quintiles has changed very much.
(source)
Now it is absolutely correct what inno is saying, and these arguments are reflected by trends in various national statistics, but the US economy shifted starting in the late sixties and really accelerating through the 70s and finishing in the 80s, from being an economy where consumer spending was underwritten by high levels of saving, to an economy where almost all of the growth in consumer spending for most of the population came from consumer debt. This fact is not unrelated to the increasing disparity of wealth that has taken place during the same time frame. No one is saying that this is the whole story, of course.
Now your last two sentences are really only true if we consider all the money and property of the rich to be inviolate. Since that is the practical reality in the US right now you are right, but our job is to change that. If you don't want to live under a dictatorship run by QAnon lunatics, anyway. If you don't care, you don't care.
Interesting fico on Netflix about it. Basically the financial sector took over vs manufacturing.
Be careful with your generalizations. Foreign policy is a topic unto itself.
Fixing poverty anywhere is a hard problem. To begin you have, maybe, 20% of the work age population who are unwilling, unable or unqualified to work. On top of that you have some large number of people (not even poor) whose goal it is to cheat the system and bend it to their personal advantage at the expense of others (mostly the poor or struggling). Add on that the past two decades have added unparalleled changes in technology that have automated millions of jobs (mostly at the lower end of the pay spectrum. Furthermore, in the US there is an existing system of welfare support programs that keep people from working because as soon a they get a job, those supports can go away. It is called the wage cliff effect. To overcome that effect folks need jobs that pay about $20/hr. all of those would have to be untangled. It is hard and it is complicated.
Lexicus
Deity
Not really, not in a rich country, and not in a technical sense. In a political sense this might be true!
Oftentimes, political problems are the hardest problems. Coronavirus wouldn't have been half the problem that it is in this country if President Ding Dong hadn't turned what was a substantial, but straightforward public health and economic problem into a political one.
Lexicus
Deity
The nice thing about them is that if the political winds change they can also be among the easiest problems to solve. It's our job to blow the winds!
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,964
"The poor will always be with you," a wise man once remarked, and I suspect he had in mind the "political" difficulties of solving the problem.
Even technically, it's hard to tackle poverty. But poverty is a catch-all for many individual moving parts. There are some parts that are easy, and they will have pretty large benefit. Some parts are hard.
And then the politics
And then the politics
"The opposite of poverty is justice." -- Bryan Stevenson
Black Lives Matter
Black Lives Matter
- Status
