The Economy, Stupid

General Discussion
1

The biggest liability for the Biden/Harris administration with voters is the economy (bigger than Gaza, whether you think that is morally right or wrong…) So how did we get here to a skittish economy with high inflation so quickly?

I would argue that the culprit was what I call “The Great Closing”: having an extended lockdown which necessitated stimulus spending, followed on by inevitable inflation (once companies know you have more money, wolves will be wolves: they will charge more…)

Price controls? Revisit the history of Nixon’s experimental attempt at that (link…) -it did not do much of anything, and it was rather hard to enforce.

20/20 hindsight: the idea of a lockdown is to give facilities a chance to reconfigure to handle a crushing load of in-patients. At most, you should need two weeks to do that (provided you act in a manner that’s consistent with a dire emergency…)

It was a BFM to have that lockdown go past two weeks!

So that’s how we got here; mistakes were made. I would say taking the lockdown past two weeks was an act of political cowardice. “What if a lot of people die?” They might die; they can opt to shelter in place -especially if they are senior or immuno-compromised. Keeping people out of work for more than two weeks was a prescription for economic disaster. “Don’t worry; we’ll give you a moratorium on rent…” And what happened when that ran out? Many people got behind and ended up being added to the rolls of the homeless.

The lockdown was sanctioned by BOTH parties. Can we admit a grievous mistake was made, and won’t be made again?

PS Covid is very real, and can lead to death; but so can homelessness. Perhaps not as quickly as covid, but get injured or attacked, and spiral down with malnutrition, its ability to lead you to death is just as real, albeit slower…

1 Like
2

And that’s due to “The Great Closing”, an extended lockdown…

3

Will the MAGAs be putting up more Biden “I did that” stickers on gas pumps??

image
image726×72 5.5 KB

4

Like Republicans, Democrats can’t risk isolating the Billionaire Donors who support them. Therefore, there will be no serious debate EVER from either of these parties on the State of the Economy. They even seem reluctant to cap Corporate Greed, which is really not in anyone’s best interest in the long run, thus attempting to pass it off as unavoidable inflation. The only way to focus on the Economy is to pass limits on how much money politicians can receive and do whatever it takes to keep the potential for profits out of the hands of the politicians. Even then, the prospect of going into politics in order to land a job later in the Private Sector still looms large. The good news though is that when the majority of the population gets squeezed financially for long enough, the Winds of Change are usually not far behind.

5

What’s even more important than barring politicians from the private sector is when REGULATORS work for industries which they previously regulated! “Here’s how you can end-run that…let me see if I can play golf with the regulator who will decide on that issue; I’ve known him a long time…etc.” There should be very strong prohibitions on regulators and law enforcement working for industries they used to regulate or enforce on, along with increases in pensions to obviate the reason often given for needing to do that…

1 Like
6

johnmichaeloneal you are so right! There is no way to fix this economy within the system, the crushing of the Bernie campaign just before super Tuesday 2020 shows that the donor class will have none of that zero sum game. As a result an autocracy is inevitable due to the ever widening income gap. Perhaps the dems can kick the can down the road another 4 years. But once again, when they cannot begin deliver real reform, their time will have come. It’s only a matter of time that our inept corporate owned duopoly consolidates to an even more evil autocracy. Misery loves company.

1 Like
7

The biggest problem western economies are now facing (not just the US…) is that the producers of essential things needed to make a living -a residence and transport- have become overpriced, and the political system is fighting any serious attempts to bring less expensive means to market because the near-monopolies who sell those means are getting regulators to obstruct the introduction of any cheaper competing products that would lead the way for new price points.

I would point to two big ones.

  • Transport: Not just EVs; laws are passed to discourage the licensure of smaller and less expensive vehicles. The two red herrings used are safety (“we’re doing it to protect you!” -sound familiar?) and unfair competition. Recently in Massachusetts, there was pushback on this: In reversal, RMV will allow Japanese mini trucks to register in Mass. (link) In an exchange by news announcers, they mused at the contradiction that you could register bikes and scooters for cheap, but not these utility vehicles. Well, try using your bike or scooter in the winter, or when there’s a heavy rain, or you need to move 100 pounds of goods. That’s exactly the reason car manufacturers are comfortable with cheap transport being restricted to vehicles that do not address those needs.

While one can argue that the Chinese at times engage in asymmetric trade practices, how come to date NO car manufacturer has bothered to make SMALLER vehicles that are less expensive? I would argue that they have become addicted to the profit margins of multi-ton vehicles with tons of electronic gear.

This is a problem for VW in Germany. Unions are complaining that the company wants to do layoffs. But I would put that at the foot of the company: they never bothered to adapt quickly enough to EVs or small utility vehicles. We saw this movie before with VW. The beetle was a great car. Then when EPA rules came out, VW used it as an EXCUSE to kill off the beetle and introduce the Rabbits, <joke>which were made out of cardboard.</joke> They could have modified the engine on the beetle to be EPA compliant, but they wanted to increase profits by selling more expensive vehicles.

  • Housing: provided proper sewage and electrical are planned for, many would like the much cheaper option of microhousing. But it’s an option closed off to many because of the passage of local ordinances against it. Whp’s pushing these ordinances? BOTH owners of McMansions and the like who do not want to see the value of their houses undercut by cheaper options in the area, and real estate developers.

There needs to be more pushback against the curtailment of more sustainable options for small autonomous utility transport and microhousing…

8

This pundit makes the case that the Dems had a tin ear on the economy…

1 Like
9

Thank you for posting this. I was watching a Bulwark video on YouTube yesterday and the discussion started with George ranting about why people are complaining about the economy when the economy is terrific and it’s been worse. Adding how he was alive in the 70s. It’s really annoying when people are like, you should feel lucky because it’s been worse or it could be worse. Anyway, I wrote this in the comments.

Economic issues and inflation are still a huge factor because they hit most of the country so terribly hard. Most people are working class, even if the government would call some middle class to make them look better, and still barely get by, if at all. Inflation ruined many of us or put us into considerable debt and dwindled our savings and retirement to nothing. Two years isn’t going to fix that. While I did not and would never vote for Trump and understand that the country–the country is doing well economically, that doesn’t mean my family is doing better financially than in the pre-COVID years. In terms of job numbers. What are the jobs, and what do they pay? Just because something looks good on paper doesn’t mean everything is rainbows and unicorns. You know what I mean? It is tiresome, annoying, and insulting when upper-middle class and higher people keep scolding me that I’m wrong about my financial situation, that I don’t understand basic concepts, and that I should quit complaining. When a majority of people say the economy is terrible even when numbers say it’s good, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong; it means certain aspects of the economy don’t trickle down to us, the little people down here, and those who have money won’t listen while the powers that be change what the numbers mean and how they calculate them to create an image of a mighty America.

1 Like
10

Most of the Dems are in a bubble; just look at how few of them can acknowledge that THIS IS ON THEM!

A majority of voters had the notion on their forebrains that if there isn’t a change soon in job security, as reckless and destructive as it might be to vote Trump, they might be homeless in another year or two if they don’t. And I’m sorry to say: many Dem strategists now appear to be falling back to an old playbook of cannibalizing workers; they believe the only way you can have a strong economy is to terrorize your workers, keep them guessing, so they have a menial state of existence (which is what Trump also believes -ask anyone who did LABOR for him in his failed businesses…)

I am shocked at how little calling out of Harris there has been now that the proof is laid bare that she was doing it completely wrong. There are a number of policies she could have put out there (other than just having concerts…) That wan’t incompetence; people were screaming at her to do some new economic policies (other than inflationary stimulus spending or a meager tax cut next year…), and to stand up to Naziyahoo to show you won’t stand by while he gets to start WWIII. She has to be a real cold …; she was telegraphing: “You know what? I don’t care; I’ll be just fine if you don’t do it my way.,” That 'tude is COMPLETELY consistent with a person who has repeatedly had 90% turnover under her…

1 Like
11

Americans are caught in a cult. It’s more than blind loyalty—it’s deep psychological manipulation. Charismatic leaders exploit our need for certainty, especially during social and economic turmoil. They tap into our desire to feel special, to believe that life has a clear purpose. They promise simple, seductive solutions to complex problems, insisting only they have the answers. For those who feel lost and anxious about the future, this is comforting, even if it means abandoning critical thought.

This dynamic is playing out on both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats are stuck in a bubble, unwilling to admit their part in creating the desperation driving many today. Meanwhile, Republicans—especially the MAGA movement—use apocalyptic narratives to paint America as on the brink of collapse. This fear-mongering convinces followers that only a strong, unyielding leader can save them, reinforcing the cult mentality.

The problem isn’t just the allure of these leaders; it’s also the black-and-white thinking they promote. Everything is reduced to “us vs. them,” good vs. evil, crushing any chance for nuance or dialogue. By framing issues as all-or-nothing, leaders on both sides push their followers to pick a side, no questions asked. This polarizing mindset is dangerous. It can incite violence when people start believing that those who disagree are enemies, not fellow citizens.

America’s fixation on individualism and its rigid two-party system deepen this problem. People feel forced to pledge absolute loyalty, leaving no room for critical thinking or compromise. Until we break free from this cult-like need for certainty and stop clinging to charismatic figures promising salvation, we’ll remain stuck in a destructive cycle. We must demand better—not just from our leaders, but from ourselves.

1 Like
12

And I wanted to wait a while for people to adjust to the fact that they lost a country with checks and balances, that it’s over; but I can’t contain myself anymore, since so few people in the punditsphere are speaking up for workers (excepting Sanders great speech…)

If you think it doesn’t matter, you can go local now: the Repubs will frequently use the Supremacy Clause to quash any local grass roots policies.

“This is the shooting match!” Ooh, boy; were the Dems ever right on that single point! And did they play to win? NO FUCKING WAY! I am going to explode if someone tries to counterargue that an Open Convention was just not possible, IT WAS POSSIBLE. YES, IT WOULD HAVE RUBBED MANY BLACK VOTERS THE WRONG WAY, AND THEY WOULD HAVE HELD A GRUDGE AND STAYED HOME ON ELECTION DAY. But you know what?? You have to RISK that loss to get a larger gain. We needed the strongest electoral candidate; someone who was going to try some new approaches (not that everything Biden was doing was wrong…) She sucked; I wasn’t going to say that on these forums before this because it wouldn’t get us anything. Now, you people need to tune into reality. I was supportive because as bad as she was, I wanted to see that a country with checks and balances would remain, even after a shitshow 4 years with her. We lose our country now, that’s all there is to it. We will be no better than a banana republic once the Repubs get the House.

By the way: one of the arguments for running with her at the time Biden stepped aside was that no one else could possibly put together a warchest to match. Excuse me: how much money was she able to raise AFTER Biden stepped down? You mean Walz, Beshar, Moore, etc. could not have gone vertical on raising as much money?? PUH-LEASE!

And now you have a firsthand experience of why people voted for Hitler (not that MAGAs have anywhere near the capability of Nazis…) We’re going to have 1-2 years of a cocaine sugar economy high, then it ends like EVERY SINGLE OTHER BUSINESS OF TRUMP’S HAS ENDED.

If I had screamed this two months ago, it wouldn’t have gotten us anything: not a single Dem offering -just volunteering!- to run if there were to be an Open Convention, in the 48 hours after Biden announced he was stepping aside? Forget it; the Dems were not going to have it any other way.

If Dems got calls in the time window advising they not run, please, people who took those calls: speak up now, you have nothing to lose. Who implicitly threatened your political career?

1 Like
13

I never saw this when it came out…

1 Like
14

A thought experiment: if we had the Open Convention, and at it she made the POLICY status quo pitch she did on the View -does anyone really think she would have walked out as the winner, warchest notwithstanding??

We would have gotten a candidate who acknowledged that SOME of what Biden did was good, but new approaches are needed on job security and foreign policy (to tone down a WWII, so we don’t consequently damage job security…)

1 Like
15

I am going to guess no, because it’s starting to sound like Biden endorsed her to spite the Democrats.

16

[Just corrected above “status quo” to “POLICY status quo” -that’s important…]

I heard that theory making the rounds before Election Day. Unless he’s going to do a pardon deal with Trump over Hunter, that was a poor bet; he had skin in the game for the Dems to win.

Given that he did not mention her in his first stepdown message, I think he was not even thinking about her. Then somebody at the Harris campaign must have frantically called him and got him to mention that pass off to Harris.

But I’d like to hear from any Dem members if they were called at that time and strongly advised not to volunteer to run. Come on, one of you prospects! Spill the beans!!

In the unlikely case the Dems hold the House, there is a clear course of action after this. In the likely case they do not, for me the damage is irreparable to restore representational government…

17

Good point. That does make my theory unlikely. It’s really hard to analyse or guess, the establishment democrats wield a lot of influence at a convention, though the member’s votes do count for something. I guess we need to wait for an insider to spill the beans.

18

A fallacy I see being thrown around is that Biden did so much more for the economy than Trump ever did. If you do believe that point, here’s the problem with that thesis: it was not enough. Go back to Sanders speech, and he cites the facts that job stability was piss poor.

Add to that the impression that Harris was not going to do much of anything to tone down a WWIII, which also affects jobs, and many did a Chaos Lottery ticket play. The Dems were hoping the voters wouldn’t do that, but clearly they learned NOTHING from 2016…

19

It’s actually not a fallacy, it is true. However, improving the economy only helps the establishment and bourgeoisie. Regulating capitalist excess and transferring economic agency back to the people is what helps the everyperson. When the bourgeoisie does well (economy does well), they will never share these economic excesses with the everyman unless the everyman has the economic agency to demand their share.

20

Yeah, it might be true; but it was not enough for most voters (Sanders states the facts…)