Showing posts with label Little Piggies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Little Piggies. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 31, 2024

On the difference between Democrat and Republican Thinking

I didn't read the thing, but I looked at Kamala's 82-page PDF "A New Way Forward for the Middle Class: A Plan to Lower Costs and Create an Opportunity Economy".  Note that her plan, first thing, is "to lower costs". This was without doubt a response to the widespread, often repeated conservative focus (and the near-universal media attack) on "the Biden inflation".

I'm not saying it is wrong to want to lower costs. I'm not saying the Biden inflation was good for anyone other than Donald Trump. But the post-pandemic inflation was the biggest economic problem we have faced in decades. And what did Kamala say? She said she wanted to lower costs. That was not a strong argument. It was more like an apology for what her boss did, as if Kamala herself blamed Biden for the inflation. No wonder she lost the election.


MSNBC's favorite word for Donald Trump is "chaos". But the Republican plan is far from chaos. Their plan is to cut federal spending. Everything Republicans do is part of the plan to cut federal spending. Seen in this light, the Republicans are far from chaotic. The opposition to vaccines and vaccinations, for example, will increase the death rate of elderly Americans, reduce the number of people receiving Social Security, and reduce federal spending on Social Security.

As a bonus, the spread of highly communicable, sometimes deadly diseases like COVID-19 and the flu will be far more rapid without vaccines -- particularly in areas of high population density such as cities. And cities are home to many more Democrats than Republicans. But ending vaccinations will help solve that problem for Republicans. 

And health care is just one aspect of their plan. Happy New Year.

Tuesday, June 27, 2023

The Democrats make no argument


This little piggy had bad policy
That little piggy had none

 
The Democrats don't make an argument. The Republicans do. Republicans have tight money, balanced budgets, tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation. It's not the policy we need, but at least it is economic policy.

The "silent majority" of Nixon's time may not have complained, but they were not perfectly happy with the economy. As time has gone by and the economy has continued to get worse, more and more quiet, disinterested people became interested, adding their voices to the calls for solutions to our economic problems. But we have seen solutions offered only on the Republican side. The Democrats offer nothing. Indeed, Democrats' issues are interpreted (at least by Republicans) as problems requiring cultural or moral rather than economic solutions.

The Democrats offer nothing. They have nothing, so they offer nothing. The honesty is refreshing, but the lack of solutions is a problem. This came up the other day at the dinner table. I said the Dems only try to help people cope with problems, and never try to fix the problems. The wife offered Biden's plan to cancel student debt as a Democrat's economic fix. Crafty, the wife: she knows I always say debt-is-the-problem. She went for the jugular.

I think she's wrong. I don't think Biden wants to cancel debt out of concern over the harmful effects debt has on the economy. But you may say it doesn't matter: If canceling debt improves the economy then it improves the economy (you may say) and Biden's reason for canceling debt doesn't make a difference.

I don't buy that. If Biden understands that excessive private debt is the source of our economic troubles, then all of his efforts will come together around the concept, and the results will be far more economic improvement and far less debt. If I was Biden I would jump on this immediately, and fortnightly introduce a plan to reduce private sector debt as painlessly as possible in one area or another of the private sector. Then I'd sit back for a week to see how the opposition reacts, and then improve my plan. There are only 35 more fortnights before election day. Surely Biden's team can come up with 35 ways to reduce private-sector debt! That would be my whole campaign strategy, if I was him.

To find out why Biden favors student debt relief, I went looking for White House remarks on the topic. Turned up a White House Fact Sheet with the title "President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most". Biden's plan is to provide relief for those who need it most, to help people cope with the bad economy. His plan is not to reduce debt to make a bad economy less bad. The Democrats have no economic plan. Their plan is to help people cope, while things continue to get worse.

The Fact Sheet says

The skyrocketing cumulative federal student loan debt—$1.6 trillion and rising for more than 45 million borrowers—is a significant burden on America’s middle class. Middle-class borrowers struggle with high monthly payments and ballooning balances that make it harder for them to build wealth...

They throw big numbers in there, but that is just a distraction. The numbers suggest either that we should feel really bad for a lot of people (and thus favor the Biden plan) or else be shocked by the potential cost of the Biden plan (and thus oppose it). Apparently, this is the Administration's idea of good argument.

The numbers distract us from the fact that they are saying student loan debt "is a significant burden on America’s middle class." The Fact Sheet doesn't say what it should say, that all of our debt is a significant burden on the economy: Our economy under-performs because we have so much debt. Somebody has to take a stand. Somebody has to say it. No one does. No Republican, no Democrat. No one is saying student loan relief is the first step in a multi-faceted plan to reduce debt throughout the private sector, to reduce financial cost, to reduce the size and power of the financial sector, and to begin restoring the health and vigor of the US economy. No one is even thinking such a thing.

Again, the Fact Sheet:

Today, President Biden is announcing a three-part plan to provide more breathing room to America’s working families as they continue to recover from the strains associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This plan offers targeted debt relief as part of a comprehensive effort to address the burden of growing college costs and make the student loan system more manageable for working families. 

In other words:

  • The plan is "to provide more breathing room to America’s working families" -- not to solve problems, but to help people cope with the problems.
  • The plan offers "debt relief ... to address the burden of growing college costs" -- not to solve the problem of growing college costs, but to help people cope with that problem, now that it is quite certainly a problem.
  • The Fact Sheet ignores the fact that in a better economy, more jobs and better-paying jobs would be available, and people would be better able to pay down their own debts.

The Democrats don't even acknowledge the economic problem. They attribute the need for "breathing room" to the pandemic. But student loan debt was a problem long before the first fever of the pandemic, the first cough, the first achy muscle, the first fatigue, and the first pandemic-related death. Doesn't that count for something?


I say again:

This little piggy has bad policy
That little piggy has none

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Let's see if this one gets me into trouble

As I write this it is mid-October in an even-numbered year. Elections are weeks away. Yesterday, I saw Republican candidates heavily advertising their stand against crime. This morning one Democratic candidate advertised his support for gun control.

The Republican technique is to take a position on an issue: "crime". The Democratic technique is to take a position on one tiny fragment of that issue: "guns". Whose argument is stronger? It should be obvious: Everyone is against crime, but not everyone is against guns. The Republican argument has meat; the Democratic argument has none. Yet the Democrat seems to believe he is making a strong case. Why? Maybe the D thinks tougher gun laws will reduce crime. Maybe they will, I don't know; but gun laws are not the source of crime. This sad and declining economy of ours is the main source of crime.

On the economy, too, Republican arguments have more weight than Democratic arguments. The Republicans say "inflation" and, for better or worse, they don't have to say another word. The Democrats have excuses. 

Hey -- whichever party was in charge would be making excuses about the inflation, no doubt. But some excuses are better than others. Putin's war, the price of oil, the covid pandemic, the cost of the response to the pandemic, these can be strong arguments. Every Republican that got on TV would be using them all, and more, and all of them would be making the same argument -- if they held the reins. Democrats don't even try.

Here's how I see the problem: Republicans make strong economic arguments; Democrats make no economic arguments. Republicans always turn to economic principles when making their case. Among Democrats, both the candidates and the voters seem to avoid economics. As a result of these differences, Republicans are able to make arguments that are overly simplistic or outright wrong, and Democrats are still unable to respond effectively.

Republicans like economic solutions. It doesn't seem to matter to them that their arguments are from the early stages of capitalism when those arguments had some validity. Now, in the late stages, those arguments no longer hold good. Republicans don't care about that. And Democrats have no idea.

Democrats do not opt for economic solutions. They don't choose to fix economic problems by using policy to change the economy. Instead, they provide money to help people cope with those problems. That's how it looks to me.

I don't know what's going on in their minds. But it looks to me as if Democrats have something like "math anxiety" about economics. Dems seem to think that if they go for sound economic argument, they will necessarily come to the same conclusions as the Republicans.

I don't know how they could possibly think this, as it is based on the flawed premise that Republican economics is sound. But the problem is

This little piggy had bad policy

That little piggy had none

All we need, really, is a few tweaks to policy, and to vote for people who understand that the financial sector is more than big enough already.