|
On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point?
Worth pointing out that if you did everything AOC does you'd go way beyond Europe or Canada. Here's a comparison of Bernie's policies compared to Corbyn (she's not Bernie but they're close enough on the issues), and the progressive, 'democratic socialist' program even goes far beyond anything even Corbyn had ever on the menu. (just one example, raising government spending to almost 70% of the gdp, compared to ~45% in the UK.)
And forget comparing yourself to Asia lol. South Korea spends about half on social welfare than the US does in relative terms. Here in Singapore, I think it may be even lower. You won't find Scandinavian social democracy in Asia.
|
On November 13 2020 12:09 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point? Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time. I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries?
I think people are trying to understand what you mean by "grow the economy" because things like developing cutting edge green technologies and production facilities, empowering "consumers" with more income, and infrastructure improvements (just a few examples) should fit that.
|
Let me extrapolate how these things "preaching minimum wage, climate change, healthcare, rights & equality" may grow the economy.
1. Minimum increases money in the hands of the average joe who will spend it.
2. Climate change offers a ton of opportunities for job creation in the Green energy sector.
3. Healthcare can help reduce debt burdens and create opportunities to encourage spending.
4. Rights and equalities don't need any economic impact but a woman making the same as a man means that 30 extra cents on the dollar can be spent I guess?
EDIT: Yes its all grotesquely simplified. 
|
On November 13 2020 12:14 Zambrah wrote:Let me extrapolate how these things "preaching minimum wage, climate change, healthcare, rights & equality" may grow the economy. 1. Minimum increases money in the hands of the average joe who will spend it. 2. Climate change offers a ton of opportunities for job creation in the Green energy sector. 3. Healthcare can help reduce debt burdens and create opportunities to encourage spending. 4. Rights and equalities don't need any economic impact but a woman making the same as a man means that 30 extra cents on the dollar can be spent I guess? EDIT: Yes its all grotesquely simplified.
All these wouldn't contribute significantly to the economy as you would have a net decrease on the other side.
1. Companies might just outsource/automate jobs if the minimum wage is too high
2. It would create jobs in green energy but also take away oil and gas jobs. Hopefully the world transitions to green energy but it won't be soon.
3. I don't see a way to provide healthcare for everyone in the US without massively increasing taxes for the middle class and rich. You can tax the rich as much as you want but with the global financial system it's extremely easy for them to move their assets offshore. Taxing the rich won't work nearly as well as people think.
4. True I guess
|
On November 13 2020 12:09 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point? Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time. I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries?
I've struck out the things that have no relevance to GDP growth. Tax cuts to increase GDP work in the short term but are viewed as an unsustainable method for long term growth. The other major economic items of Trump's either have no relevance or actually decrease GDP (like tariffs).
The reason we're trying to narrow it down is that GDP growth in and of itself isn't always desirable: the biggest GDP growth I can think of would be to kill 100% of the people in the country and then have robots shuffle their money around in the stock market. Boom, instant thousands of percentage points of GDP growth in the next year.
Or for a more believable scenario : let's cut all our taxes to 0% and just run the US government through debt and then refuse to pay it back (which WAS something Trump suggested. Not paying back government debt, I mean). Another GDP skyrocket that should obviously be insane, because it's a one time increase (as with any tax cut)
btw: AOC has an economics degree.
|
On November 13 2020 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:09 Dante08 wrote:On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point? Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time. I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries? I think people are trying to understand what you mean by "grow the economy" because things like developing cutting edge green technologies and production facilities, empowering "consumers" with more income, and infrastructure improvements (just a few examples) should fit that.
It's a generic term really, includes GDP and basically increasing the amount of wealth for everyone, especially the poor/middle class (not through welfare).
|
On November 13 2020 12:21 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:14 Zambrah wrote:Let me extrapolate how these things "preaching minimum wage, climate change, healthcare, rights & equality" may grow the economy. 1. Minimum increases money in the hands of the average joe who will spend it. 2. Climate change offers a ton of opportunities for job creation in the Green energy sector. 3. Healthcare can help reduce debt burdens and create opportunities to encourage spending. 4. Rights and equalities don't need any economic impact but a woman making the same as a man means that 30 extra cents on the dollar can be spent I guess? EDIT: Yes its all grotesquely simplified. All these wouldn't contribute significantly to the economy as you would have a net decrease on the other side. 1. Companies might just outsource/automate jobs if the minimum wage is too high 2. It would create jobs in green energy but also take away oil and gas jobs. Hopefully the world transitions to green energy but it won't be soon. 3. I don't see a way to provide healthcare for everyone in the US without massively increasing taxes for the middle class and rich. You can tax the rich as much as you want but with the global financial system it's extremely easy for them to move their assets offshore. Taxing the rich won't work nearly as well as people think. 4. True I guess
1. Companies will outsource and automate jobs either way.
2. Oil and gas jobs should be replaced, the work that would need to be done to dismantle oil and gas and create green energy would vastly outpace oil and gas jobs. Net increase.
3. Tax increases offset by no longer needing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for your employee healthcare. Reduces the cost of healthcare overall via preventative care, etc.
|
On November 13 2020 12:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:09 Dante08 wrote:On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point? Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time. I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries? I've struck out the things that have no relevance to GDP growth. Tax cuts to increase GDP work in the short term but are viewed as an unsustainable method for long term growth. The other major economic items of Trump's either have no relevance or actually decrease GDP (like tariffs). The reason we're trying to narrow it down is that GDP growth in and of itself isn't always desirable: the biggest GDP growth I can think of would be to kill 100% of the people in the country and then have robots shuffle their money around in the stock market. Boom, instant thousands of percentage points of GDP growth in the next year. Or for a more believable scenario : let's cut all our taxes to 0% and just run the US government through debt and then refuse to pay it back (which WAS something Trump suggested. Not paying back government debt, I mean). Another GDP skyrocket that should obviously be insane, because it's a one time increase (as with any tax cut) btw: AOC has an economics degree.
So to answer my question, what plans does AOC have for economic growth?
|
On November 13 2020 12:23 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2020 12:09 Dante08 wrote:On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point? Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time. I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries? I think people are trying to understand what you mean by "grow the economy" because things like developing cutting edge green technologies and production facilities, empowering "consumers" with more income, and infrastructure improvements (just a few examples) should fit that. It's a generic term really, includes GDP and basically increasing the amount of wealth for everyone, especially the poor/middle class (not through welfare).
You're not arguing she didn't have economic plans then, you're arguing that you believe they are net negatives or neutral economically.
Infrastructure spending is pretty universally recognized as improving GDP in the short and long term for example
|
On November 13 2020 12:24 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2020 12:21 Nevuk wrote:On November 13 2020 12:09 Dante08 wrote:On November 13 2020 12:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you need a plan for that? Doesn’t the invisible hand sort it out?
What’s Trump’s big macroeconomic plan been for example?
Excluding the Green New Deal stuff which is a bit more radical, if the wider US economy can’t function while proffering the kind of benefits the Eurozone, Canada, the Anzacs and I’m assuming many Asian countries offer what’s the point? Trump's plan was to bring manufacturing jobs back to US, focus on US made products, cut taxes to increase spending and spur economic growth. We'll leave the success of these plans for another time. I'm asking because I'm curious, shouldn't every politician have a plan for growing the economy and keeping the lead/staying competitive with other countries? I've struck out the things that have no relevance to GDP growth. Tax cuts to increase GDP work in the short term but are viewed as an unsustainable method for long term growth. The other major economic items of Trump's either have no relevance or actually decrease GDP (like tariffs). The reason we're trying to narrow it down is that GDP growth in and of itself isn't always desirable: the biggest GDP growth I can think of would be to kill 100% of the people in the country and then have robots shuffle their money around in the stock market. Boom, instant thousands of percentage points of GDP growth in the next year. Or for a more believable scenario : let's cut all our taxes to 0% and just run the US government through debt and then refuse to pay it back (which WAS something Trump suggested. Not paying back government debt, I mean). Another GDP skyrocket that should obviously be insane, because it's a one time increase (as with any tax cut) btw: AOC has an economics degree. So to answer my question, what plans does AOC have for economic growth?
She's a member of the house with no seniority: she's not actually expected to have any full plans on economic growth (that's more the responsibility of chairs of committees, senators, or presidential candidates).
She does have some thoughts, but not in the same way that someone like Warren would (who has a full economic plan).
FWIW, AOC is a believer in MMT. Now, we can have a long, very pointless discussion on MMT theory if you want, but that's the actual answer. (Much of this thread dislikes MMT, but it is clearly the mainstream position of both Republicans and the Federal Reserve, which is the only group whose opinion actually matters on the subject, currently).
IE, she believes in running the government at a deficit in order to invest in newer energy technologies and poorer workers, thinking that our reliance on fossil fuels and increasing inequality are bad for our economy in the long run.
(Her tax increase proposals are not about raising money for her plans : they're about reducing wealth inequality).
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37100 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
