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…
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.
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…
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.
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…
