Writes Eugene Robinson, in "Liz Truss’s fall is a warning to populists everywhere" (WaPo).
Is supply-side, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics populist?
Robinson ends with this warning:
When you hear Republicans in this country say “secure the border” or “crack down on crime” or “America first,” keep in mind how easy it is to write a bumper sticker and how hard it is to actually govern in a complex, interconnected world. GOP leaders, pay attention: Britain’s Conservatives have pandered their way into ruin.
Well, “secure the border” or “crack down on crime” and “America first” sound populist, but every single one of those things is not supply-side, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics.
Seems like Robinson is mixing up the categories of right-wingers. You could easily blend left-wing economics with securing the border, cracking down on crime, and putting America first.
Posts
83 comments:
6 weeks of a proposed tax cut that the international bankers torpedoed=the failure of tax cuts as a policy.
100 years of economic failure, poverty, mass murder, slavery and dictatorship=socialism hasn't really been properly implemented.
Yeah, the problem with Liz Truss and Boris and Theresa May is that they campaign as populists and govern like Tony Blair 2.0.
Yeah, the problem with Liz Truss and Boris and Theresa May is that they campaign as populists and govern like Tony Blair 2.0.
Right wing has both traditionalists and people who can intuit side-effects. The left wing has people who can't intuit side-effects.
Well, “secure the border” or “crack down on crime” and “America first” sound populist, but every single one of those things is not supply-side, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics.
Used to be standard Democrat talking points, during the Clinton years anyway.
"Is supply-side, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics populist?"
No. These terms are jargon used by the wealthy entities who control society to make their ongoing schemes to steal ever more from the people seem palatable to those being robbed.
"keep in mind how easy it is to write a bumper sticker and how hard it is to actually govern in a complex, interconnected world."
How can we not keep that in mind when our minds are continuously assaulted by the perfect example the current regime provides?
"Secure the border" is a rallying cry.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have BOTH said, proudly, that the influx of illegal aliens is necessary "because companies need workers." Their goal is to DRIVE DOWN WAGES. To impoverish employees who are in constant negotiation with employers over what their wages will be in a time when inflation is running at almost 9% annually.
The more supply of workers, the lower the price (this is true with any good or service.)
Unions (the nation's rail labor union specifically) is negotiating a 4% annual wage increases for their members, and not recommending they strike. I mean, what good is a union that negotiates for a REAL WAGE CUT and never strikes? Who needs a union like that?
Gas is currently DOUBLE what it was under Trump. In some places it is TRIPLE. Inflation is running 9% annually (on the BS basket of goods the government uses to measure inflation). We all know what the real inflation is because we all SHOP for groceries. Eggs are now $6/doz. That has never happened in the history of eggs.
Democrats are going down to a FLAMING DEFEAT in the upcoming elections and this article is an attempt to deny that reality.
"Secure the border" is a rallying cry.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have BOTH said, proudly, that the influx of illegal aliens is necessary "because companies need workers." Their goal is to DRIVE DOWN WAGES. To impoverish employees who are in constant negotiation with employers over what their wages will be in a time when inflation is running at almost 9% annually.
The more supply of workers, the lower the price (this is true with any good or service.)
Unions (the nation's rail labor union specifically) is negotiating a 4% annual wage increases for their members, and not recommending they strike. I mean, what good is a union that negotiates for a REAL WAGE CUT and never strikes? Who needs a union like that?
Gas is currently DOUBLE what it was under Trump. In some places it is TRIPLE. Inflation is running 9% annually (on the BS basket of goods the government uses to measure inflation). We all know what the real inflation is because we all SHOP for groceries. Eggs are now $6/doz. That has never happened in the history of eggs.
Democrats are going down to a FLAMING DEFEAT in the upcoming elections and this article is an attempt to deny that reality.
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
When you hear Republicans in this country say “secure the border” or “crack down on crime” or “America first,” keep in mind how easy it is to write a bumper sticker and how hard it is to actually govern in a complex, interconnected world.
Easy or difficult, those are three things the last Republican Administration clearly accomplished.
Robinson is articulating the left’s view of intersectionality. If they can convince you that something you identify is good is in fact part and parcel to some other things that are bad then they can mute your desire for the good thing.
Everything those who disagree with the positions of the right are made to be toxic in this way. Of course, this technique is not permitted for leftist policies.
Intersectionality is an extension of censorship from what you express to what you think. The left is led by some very smart and evil people.
A marvel of thought-free journalism. And his conclusion? Governing is hard, right-wingers should give up and go away forever.
"But the most needlessly self-destructive was trying to impose simplistic right-wing economic policies that work only in theory, never in practice."
Funny, though, they powered this country through one of the richest periods of its history. Reagan's tax cuts and an assist from a tough-minded Fed Chair Paul Volcker got the economy growing and inflation slowing and that carried through the '80s and the '90s at a minimum. We saw one of the greatest periods of innovation -- the internet, anyone? PCs? -- and wealth creation ever. Even slicing the personal income tax rates from the high of 70% to 38% (later, 28%) found government revenues growing along with all that economic growth. From $500 billion in fiscal 1980, government budget revenues rose to just shy of $1 trillion by fiscal 1989, the year he left office.
Reagan, and Art Laffer, were correct about the benefits of letting individuals keep more of their own money. Everyone prospered, even the government. And that wealth and creativity helped us win the Cold War.
But Eugene Robinson, a young journalist at the time, would have despised Reagan. Enough time has passed that he thinks he can get away with flat assertions that are purely false. What can a reader do, besides skip these types and their publisher-enablers? Leave him to vent his sorry anti-American religion as he requires. Younger readers (if there still are any) who don't already know the history are on their own to educate themselves through more balanced accounts elsewhere.
The sanctions on Russia destroyed the British economy, but the rule of our masters is to always blame the other side for whatever they themselves are doing.
Look at the protests across Europe right now, massive street protests against sanctions and the war, but there seems to be no reporting on those despite the fantastic video of massive crowds. No, it’s Trump’s fault because he wants to negotiate!
They are so fucking predictable you could figure out the next story from a simple flow-chart.
Once what's left of the union movement realizes the lack of a secure border screwed their members, they might have a change of heart (or a change in political party). It's doubtful though. The union leadership will still be favored by the likes of Biden, Pealosi and Chuck Schemer.
Crack down on crime is populist? Who knew? I didn't realize when Mayor Rudy Giuliani cleaned up NYC he was a populist.
The only trickle down the lefties like is public urination.
I heard much the same repeated on msnbs. The failure of one politician, in an entirely different structure of govt, in a foreign land, is exactly like Pennsylvania, or Portland. That's some 'deep thoughts' there. Brilliant opining. But is beats the hell out of trying to defend, inflation, crime, and the invasion of +2 million illegal aliens.
Micheal Steele, Ex CEO, of the RNC didn't waste time on smearing those R's running for office, or specific agenda items, he just attacked Republican voters. Said the voters are fleas, bed bugs and ticks. Stupid blood sucking parasites.
These are my intellectual betters.
I’m unaware when Liz pushed America first. Her mistake was trying to do things too fast that were not securing the border and cracking down on crime. It caused confusion and her policies on energy run counter to the unexpected new King.
They're all buzz words. Robinson doesn't concern himself to much with what they actually mean.
We all know the line--conservative believe in objective truth--that which is true on the real world is true--liberals believe in revolutionary truth--that which furthers the revolution is true. Basically, to the liberal, words have emotional meaning and are true if they evoke the correct emotion.
Robinson's essay might seem like an incoherent word salad, but it actually makes perfect sense if you consider what he's trying to do.
WAPO is boring and stupid.
Ah, a little concern trolling to start the day.
It is also nice to know that border control and law enforcement are not at all related to the most fundamental responsibilities of government. We all should have realized for our first breath that the government exists to provide wealth accumulating opportunities for the elite and their minions, as they profit as the world burns around them. I'm sure Eugene has not forgotten, given his newspaper caters exclusively to those people.
Of course the warning is not for Democrats, who are actually in Power in DC, and who are leading the country down a lamentable path. Typical WaPo "friendly" warning to Republicans.
Wait until the new sanctions on Russian oil take a million or two barrels a day out word crude supplies. I am sure that this won’t shake the resolve of the west to keep getting Ukrainians killed. It sort of reminds me of that quote from the judge in Caddyshack: “I have sent younger men than you to the gas chamber. I didn’t want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them.”
You could easily blend left-wing economics with securing the border, cracking down on crime, and putting America first.
Most of us here have enough seniority to remember when this was the case.
She had a bold Thatcherite plan and absolutely no balls to stand by it when leadership was needed. By contrast this same crowd represented by Robinson all mocked Trump policy proposals but he actually did follow through and made enormous progress. They can try and gaslight us about populism but we SAW it work just like Reagan’s reversal of the Carter malaise. But it takes bold leadership and Truss was a wimp not a confident leader like Trump. The Biden years have so far made Trump look even more miraculous even though Robinson’s buddy Barack mocked Trump in exactly this way in 2016: “Wa- wa- what is Trump gonna do? Wave a magic wand to improve the economy?”
Trump proved reality works better than Democrat “magic” and the real increase in wages for ALL income levels proved it. Trump’s results were the reason minority voters are now fleeing the fascist Democrat party.
My first approximation is that Robinson has absolutely no idea of what Liz Truss said or believed. He just picked some buzzwords. As you point out, he didn't do a very good job of that.
Seems to me the Democrat’s open borders, rampant crime and America Last policies aren’t going so well. I’m wondering what his point is.
Trump’s populist policies were working great prior to the pandemic upsetting it all. Truss doesn’t have his backbone, though, so of course she found it difficult to govern. Robinson is trying to make a general rule from one specific case. No sale.
All in on...
Supply-side = The biggest named contributor of inflation today, inadequate supply. Increasing supply would solve inflation, while decreasing demand is simply society-level punishing.
Laissez-Faire = I'm not even going to try to define how he's using this term.
Trickle-down economics = What a tired, over-used word in it's current context. Why don't we call the belief that government spending stimulates economic results "trickle down economics" - it would be similarly accurate in description.
...
What a intellectually stupid piece.
You could easily blend left-wing economics with securing the border, cracking down on crime, and putting America first.
If the left wanted any of those things, which they don't, evidently.
But your point is well taken.
As the election approaches the chief propagandists seem to be all shook up. They are scrambling to come up with powerful combination weaponry of what used to work. Alas, nothing makes sense anymore. The readers gullibility for nonsense has gone past a tipping point. I blame Kari Lake, MTG, and the new found courage in Carlson, Waters, and Gutfeld on Fox.
Eugene Robinson is a bumper sticker for neobarbarism. Today's Democrat Party doesn't care about making life better, it cares about letting illegal aliens into the country (new Democrat voters), letting criminals do whatever they want (new Democrat voters) and stealing as much as they can from the taxpayer before they're tossed out of office.
We have neobarbarians prosecutors and judges who have never met a criminal that they didn't want back out on the street, tout suite. They make noises about gun violence, but never prosecute anyone who uses a gun. In fact, they are best friends with gun-criminals.
Illegal aliens need to be stopped at the border and sent back to their home countries. Overstay aliens need to be identified by local law enforcement when they are involved in an incident (traffic stop for speeding, for example), turned over to the Feds and then sent home. But, Democrat counties and cities are sanctuary entities and will just pat those aliens on the head and say "come back soon!"
Humperdink said:
"Crack down on crime is populist? Who knew? I didn't realize when Mayor Rudy Giuliani cleaned up NYC he was a populist.
The only trickle down the lefties like is public urination.
10/21/22, 7:13 AM"
Hear!! Hear!!
Liz's mistake was not going down swinging. She could have defended the idea of growth-oriented policies, pushing back on the green revolution. Instead she panicked, walked it back, and had to resign anyway. A wasted opportunity. Even if the end result is the same, at least the case would have been made, and the failures of her replacement would be a lesson to the fainthearted "moderates."
If we'd had a parliamentary system, Reagan might have been pushed out in 1982 and replaced by the likes of Bush. Fortunately Reagan and Volcker were able to stand their ground and we had 25 years of prosperity until the failures of W and Obama.
The buzzwords Robinson uses aren't populist. He may be thinking of the Tea Party and earlier grassroots anti-tax protests, like the campaigns to cap property tax rates in the Seventies and Eighties, which were more or less populist.
From what I've seen of Liz, she didn't seem to have much populist appeal or to make a populist appeal to the public. Compared to Establishment politicians and born-again liberal ecowarrior Boris, she might seem to be a populist to outsiders who follow British politics even less than we do.
But it looks more like she was just trying to get the economy started again, and didn't have an opening, given Britain's problems with inflation and the bond market. Could she have pushed harder -- been a Margaret Thatcher? No, Thatcher came in when people were sick of Labour. Right now, Britons are sick of the Tories, and the wheels are coming off the Conservative clown car.
99% of people who speak or write about supply-side economics haven't the faintest notion what it means. All it means is the attempt to increase the growth of the economy by moving the supply (rather than demand) curve forward which leads to growth but at lower prices. It isn't easy but it isn't trickle down either.
So letting people keep their own money is a problem.
Fuck you.
Our political commentators (I am being generous) are incompetent. Eugene Robinson knows what he thinks (GOP bad) but he doesn't know why he thinks it. Here is he is hooting about the fairly predictable outcome of flooding an economy with money (with no corresponding creation of value) by causing people stay away from work and paying them for it.
Liz Truss's fundamental problem is that she intended to revive the UK economy by restoring incentives for economic growth, but she had no case to make about how economic growth would come about. ("We're still working on our plan, and you'll have it in two months.")
Having said that, I think the GOP has to be careful. Cat-calling is much easier than staying the course even with good policy. Ever since the Tea Party was strangled by Obama IRS and the GOPe, there is no congressional party for fiscal and monetary restraint--and Liz Truss's plans were not about retraining public spending in the UK. Recognizing that things are going to get worse for a while, Team Biden is out saying that the economy is really, really good. The odds are that the economy is going to be much worse in 2023 no matter who is in control of Congress.
Is the GOP ready for the flood of blame that is coming its way from the Dems and their allies in the media? The travails of Truss should be a warning. The pressure to spend more and to direct everything from DC is going to have an 18 foot storm surge. Our problems are nowhere near being resolved. A GOP win in November would be a first step, but it is nowhere near sufficient by itself. It needs to be followed up by good (progrowth) policy. The future may be wet.
Hey look! “Unknown” is allowed as a handle again!
Hey look! “Unknown” is allowed as a handle again!
"Well, “secure the border” or “crack down on crime” and “America first” sound populist, but every single one of those things is not supply-side, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics."
Exactly. By the way, what do the moderate women of America prefer? A border with just a few holes here and there? Laissez-faire except for green energy and student loan subsidies?
"Seems like Robinson is mixing up the categories of right-wingers. You could easily blend left-wing economics with securing the border, cracking down on crime, and putting America first."
Also true. You could even call it national socialism.
The mixing up categories, at this late date, shows prog privilege and myopia: they have no clue about anyone even slightly to their right, and they think they can afford to be clueless. Until they can't.
We need to purge College Professors such as this idiot. She is as dumb as Robinson. Being upset at all the crime going down in Democrat run cities is RACIST now. WHAT isn't racist to these RACISTS who see RACISM in everything. Time to sack these scumbags from teaching our kids to hate.
"However, as Fordham University professor and frequent MSNBC guest Christina Greer insisted, crime and inflation were imaginary with the former having a racist element."
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2022/10/21/raacist-msnbc-panel-scoffs-crime-top-issue-voters-implies-its
You lost me at "Eugene Robinson."
Basically the Tories won by tricking their voters, and fired the only person their voters respected over using a personal account to send a “draft proposal to limit immigration,” only the part in quotes explains anything about why she was fired. I would vote Labor at this point if I were British.
Complete commoditization of the working class is one of the foremost agenda items of our ruling elite, and they take the right of immigration as an absolute, since it serves their economic plan, and deny absolutely that the voters can have any say in the matter.
We’ll it’s Eugene Robinson.
"keep in mind how easy it is to write a bumper sticker and how hard it is to actually govern...".
Writing a good bumper sticker is quite a bit harder than what Eugene Robinson does for a living.
When you read Eugene Robinson you part of your brain dies.
"Today's Democrat Party doesn't care about making life better, it cares about letting illegal aliens into the country (new Democrat voters) . . . "
Open borders isn't about creating new dem voters. It's part of a larger strategy of hobbling the U.S. economy to "save the planet," weaken our military and foreign policy might, and fan the flames of crisis and unrest so as to hasten the arrival of socialism.
The American left no longer wants Scandanavian-style socialism; they want the full-on authoritarian version. This requires destroying traditional institutions (family, schools, religion, law enforcement, etc.); impugning constitutional values (freedom of speech; freedom of conscience; colorblind government policies); elevating group identify over individual merit; controlling voting and vote-counting; inflaming racial and economic resentment; and normalizing crime and violence as a remedy for perceived injustices.
On the flip - when a democrat promises to give you free money and other green energy pipe dreams- it's all OK!
Doomcasting.
Seems like Robinson is mixing up the categories of right-wingers.
Naah. According to Robinson, all right-wingers are bad, so there's no need to split them up into categories.
Liz Truss got booted out because she was a British Paul Ryan/Mitt Romney. She had ZERO desire to restrict immigration or secure "The border". If she had made that her first priority, she'd still be in office.
Instead, her first priority was cutting taxes for Big Business and Wealthy. Which very few people wanted. Her other main priority, like Mittens and the Neo-clowns, was war in Ukraine. And globalist intervention all around the world. Which has sent energy prices soaring in the UK.
NOT. POPULIST.
Average Brits are being hammered by out-of-control inflation, soaring gas prices, and a massive government deficit. They want immigration brought under control, the border jumping stopped, and the economy restored to normal. Cutting taxes for the rich was exactly what they did NOT want.
Of course, the Liberal/left wants people like Romney and Mitch McConnell and Yeb! to be the "Conservative" opposition. That way, they get 80 percent of what they want: Open borders, climate change, massive immigration, neo-con interventions, racial strife, and lax law enforcement, right off the bat. Then, all they have to argue with "Romney Conservatives" is whether to cut taxes and how much to spend on social welfare. Oh, and abortion.
It didn't help that Liz Truss had zero charisma. She's very intelligent, but she's about as likable as Ted Cruz.
Truss was brought down by big money and progressive naysayers. Robinson and his ilk would brand this as a policy failure. This is precisely why they should be ignored on issues of substance.
Think of borders as picket lines, illegal aliens as scabs, and open borders as union busting; it all makes perfect sense. This is why the Democrats are the party of the affluent and the comfortable, and are hemorrhaging the minority voters who are harmed by these policies.
I would vote Labor at this point if I were British.
Complete commoditization of the working class is one of the foremost agenda items of our ruling elite, and they take the right of immigration as an absolute, since it serves their economic plan, and deny absolutely that the voters can have any say in the matter.
You're being more illogical and incoherent than usual for you.
You apparently oppose unfettered and unrestricted immigration policies, but you state that you would vote for the party that promotes such policies and not for the only party that opposes such policies.
Divide and conquer by stoking racial division is also a key element of the plan.
Eugene Robinson, you're trying to seduce me ... Aren't you?
Yes, one could have blended populist policies with left-wing politics and economics, but Bernie Sanders surrendered to the open borders crowd, and progressivism came to be about race, gender, and sexual identity, rather than about class or income inequality or deindustrialization or restricting corporate power. Biden is trying to address concerns about lost jobs, but how sincere is he about that really? Is it all just for the midterms?
One reason why the anti-Maga rhetoric falls short is that Trump's themes of immigration and trade were Democrat themes in the 1980s and 1990s, themes voiced by Dick Lamm, Eugene McCarthy, Dick Gephardt, Jim Trafficant and others. Trump combined Reaganism with anti-Reaganism and was more in the American mainstream than his enemies would admit. Reagan voters were still thinking in terms of a national economy even as the economy was being globalized, something some of Reagan's critics perceived before the rest of the country.
"When you hear Republicans in this country say “secure the border” or “crack down on crime” or “America first,” keep in mind how easy it is to write a bumper sticker and how hard it is to actually govern in a complex, interconnected world. GOP leaders, pay attention: Britain’s Conservatives have pandered their way into ruin.
The "conservative" party leadership in Britain have governed as perfect WEF/Davos/Romney-McConnell types and completely rejected all populist initiatives. The "conservative" party in Britain is Labor-Lite and has been since Thatcher was couped by the globalists. It was hoped that Boris, the former mayor of London and a deep Green-believing weenie, would at least have the competence and integrity to follow thru with Brexit as he had heartily promised for quite a long time. There were no illusions he would do anything else that could be considered "conservative" or "populist".
But he failed to do that, on purpose, just like Theresa May. The borders were left wide open, Green policies were pushed forward with a vengeance, capitulation after capitulation to keep Britain wedded to the EU with the EU wielding astonishing powers over the day to day life of British citizenry. Boris was happy to go Full Biden/Full Fauci in lockdowns and harming his own people.
Liz was an even weaker, more pathetic version of Boris, which is why she lasted about 15 minutes because now, as with the Republican RINO leadership, the jig is up and they can no longer hide their pathetic capitulation to the globalist agenda. So it doesn't matter whose next in line for the Conservative Party. It's the same old same old and everyone sees it which may lead to a break in the conservative party ranks as real conservatives/populists decide, finally, there is no hope working within the Conservative Party structure, which is just the Labor Party structure with better suits and better tea parties.
Think of borders as picket lines, illegal aliens as scabs, and open borders as union busting; it all makes perfect sense.
I can't figure out if this is simple ignorance, or gas lighting.
Unions are not threatened by illegal immigration. Unions today are made up of government employees who benefit from illegal immigration.
On the plus side, Eugene Robinson met his quota for articles written per week and was compensated nicely for it.
It was either this, or join forces with FakeCons David French and the Lincoln Pedophile Project to once again offer up a full throated defense for the "blessings of Liberty" grooming of children, manipulating as many children as possible into the Trans mentality and opting to mutilate their underage bodies permanently.
But even these dunces know you probably have to lay off those openly New Soviet Democratical Policy preferences and business models until after November.
” keep in mind how easy it is to write a bumper sticker and how hard it is to actually govern..."
Say versus do.
The Democrats say a lot of good things. Like "the border is secure" or "we are funding the police" or "we will leave no one behind...". But they fail to even recognize the problems.
And they, apparently, have no concept of feedback. It is not rocket science.
Here's a problem. Here's our idea on how to fix that. Implement that idea. Then .... how'd that work out? Oh it's worse, we'll deny the problem then double down.
As a result they don't DO squat to solve anything.
A GOP win in November would be a first step, but it is nowhere near sufficient by itself. It needs to be followed up by good (progrowth) policy. The future may be wet.
Yes but I don't trust McCarthy to do it. Jim Jordan would be better. Part of Truss's problem was she wasn't ready to be PM. She hadn't figured out her plan. One thing that's killing UK is the "Green" policies of Boris. She should have gone all out on energy, just as the GOP should do in January. Then the border. Defunding the DOJ would be popular.
Let me amplify a pithy spot-on comment:
rrsafety said...
99% of people who speak or write about supply-side economics haven't the faintest notion what it means. All it means is the attempt to increase the growth of the economy by moving the supply (rather than demand) curve forward which leads to growth but at lower prices. It isn't easy but it isn't trickle down either.
At the risk of infringing Drago's copyright, let me add that the parts bolded only happen every time they are applied. Hint, even Bill Clinton knew it and benefited from it.
When opinion editorial sounds like the winning hand of buzz-word bingo.
It's a tortured take at best.
From the post:
"Seems like Robinson is mixing up the categories of right-wingers. You could easily blend left-wing economics with securing the border, cracking down on crime, and putting America first."
True, but first the Socialists must succeed in coming to power. Then the migrants won't be necessary any longer, thoughtcrime will be Job One for the Federal Police, and America reinvented as a "workers' paradise" will come first, subject to the whims of the Nomenclatura.
---6 weeks of a proposed tax cut that the international bankers torpedoed=the failure of tax cuts as a policy.
100 years of economic failure, poverty, mass murder, slavery and dictatorship=socialism hasn't really been properly implemented.
Apt summary from Boatbuilder. It seems that too much prosperity has eroded too many people's critical thinking skills. Anything still seems possible now. Why not go back to socialism? Maybe it will work this time.
And timing matters. Liz Truss's attempt may have come too close to the financial peak. Her unpreparedness is a function of the same problem. So it was too easy to sabotage the project and get the idea dumped. Our human nature must require more years of misery before we will try something that actually does work. Especially since it would entail restraint somewhere, to avoid bankruptcy. Restraint? No more freebies? Ouch. Why do that when we can still engage in Eugene Robinson-style magical thinking? We have avoided consequences for years, with buckets of free cash from government and almost-free money from the central bankers. Let's just keep on going like that! Cancel debts. More free money.
The results are finally catching up with us, but it's tempting to stay in denial on that score. There is a lot of ruin in a nation. Someone smart said that. And the obliviousness that Eugene Robinson espouses illustrates exactly that, unfortunately. He is a cheerleader for dopey governance, pandering (as he projected onto his imaginary villains) to low-information voters who prefer someone who will keep lying to them. There are a lot of Eugene Robinsons out there. But I would bet that every one of them is going to be proved wrong before this cycle is over. That takes time, is the bad part.
These 'bumper sticker' requirements that we are holding the government responsible for are what we are wanting - requiring - them to do. We know it's hard. That's why we are charging you - the government to do it. If you can't do it, then what use are you?
Anyone who refers to supply-side economics as 'trickle-down' is a liar or a fool. No one who supports it calls it that, because that is not how it works. Way back under Reagan, when some lefties started calling it that, someone (Milton Friedman?) pointed out that a better name would be 'bubble-up economics'. The whole point is that cutting tax rates and regulations will cause many people to start small businesses, many small businesses to expand and hire more workers, and so on up the scale, turning small businesses into medium-sized ones and medium-sized businesses into big businesses. If sales and earnings increase fast enough, total tax revenues can increase even as tax rates decrease. And it worked: as I recall, total tax revenues went up an average of $80 billion per year in Reagan's last six years. The Democrats in Congress managed to increase the deficit only by spending all that and more.
I'm surprised no one has said that she failed because of sexism.
Oh, she's Convservative? Well, never mind then. I'm not surprised at all.
"You could easily blend left-wing economics with securing the border, cracking down on crime, and putting America first," unless you are a Democrat. FIFY.
As one who has lived most his life in the Bay Area, I have to laugh when lefties accuse the GOP of practicing bumper sticker politics. That said, I don't see many Dems visualizing world peace these days.
Is supply-side, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics populist?
=======
my Q is why are these hyphenated?
It’s analogous gahrie, not literal.
The WaPo column mandatory macro: [words, words, words....] And in conclusion, Trump delenda est.
I keep wondering how "populist" it was for Truss to have a cabinet without a single white male, only protected (and preferred) minorities. Did the majority of Brits really favor being cut out of their government?
The UK voters are in the same boat as american voters. The Tories may be a shit sandwhich but Labour is a tripple-decker shit sandwhich with a chaser of piss.
Labour has completely betrayed the native british working class. That's why they lost the so-called "Red Wall" in the last election. They're even more globalist, more SJW, more anti-patriotic, and more pro-EU and open borders than the Tories. Even worse, they have little interest in the average UK working bloke. They'd rather have a Gay stockbroker in London or a Muslim immigrant in Liverpool voting for them, then a native Briton from Nottingham.
Labour is controlled by big money donors just like the Tories. Look at the absurd witchhunt against Corbyn. The man was a complete flat-chested left-wing wanker, but he was driven out due to his position on Israel vs Palastine. Which the vast majority of Labour voters don't care about one way or the other. But the British Elite do care. So he was booted.
If there is no production, they will not consume.
The market is a democratic-earth hybrid system for determining price and distribution.
Capitalism refers to retained earnings, private earnings, is a trickle-up economic system.
The ex pm’s problem was that she did not lie about her intentions and sneak her real program in a bit at a time. Don’t show your hand until the last call.
If Eugene Robinson and Charles Blow switched places, could anyone tell their personalities apart?
Dr. Weevil at 12:46 beat me to it.
“Trickle-down economics” is the original “So you’re saying….” It is a lefty misunderstanding of a point worth arguing on its own terms.
To her credit, she did not play the woman card.
RE: "When you hear Republicans in this country say “secure the border” or “crack down on crime” or “America first,” keep in mind how easy it is to write a bumper sticker and how hard it is to actually govern in a complex, interconnected world."
And yet for four years Trump did exactly that.
Liz Truss was anti-Brexit.
And that destroyed her positive characteristics.
Good riddance
Post a Comment