The bottom line here is that Demography Unplugged still doesn't appreciate (recognize, accept) the huge leap in financial flexibility that the1970 advent of universal fiat currency (the elimination of money's connection to gold) handed governments that issue their own currency. In that regard, DU is just like most people (even most classical economists), but, unlike most people, DU actually thinks it knows something everyone else doesn't and, accordingly, wrongly tries to spur fear among voters of government "overspending," disparaging them for "ignorance" that isn't ignorant. Social Security is never going to go bankrupt (can't go bankrupt unless Congress decides not to fund it), and increased, direct, federal fiscal spending (such as the candidates are proposing) is a very sound (anti-austerity) public-interest agenda. Read up on Modern Monetary Theory.
I make no claim to knowing something that most people don't. MMT is predicated on the notion that you can indefinitely expand economic output, beyond full employment, by issuing more debt, either in interest-bearing form (bonds) or noninterest-bearing form (currency). Most economists, on both the left and the right, overwhelmingly reject this idea (see polls of economists' opinions about MMT). And most ordinary voters do as well--as I tried to show in my surveys of the public. In this piece, rather, I was trying to explain why it is that voters sometimes go along with particular proposals that directly violate general principles which they agree are absolutely fundamental. It's a sort of "tragedy of the commons" problem that can afflict democracies during times of distrust, polarization, and institutional breakdown.
Donald J. Trump, the archetypal Prophet, has addressed the “deficit problem” … to fire up the economy’s engine and inspire animal spirits. Each candidate has a very different view of “government assistance”. Harris with here centralized command and control “hand-out economy” … Trump with his creating the conditions necessary for peace and prosperity to flourish “hand-up economy”.
I tend to think both candidates are pushing for policies that will inevitably lead to more centralized command and control. Trump's high tariff walls, which will relieve domestic firms of most global price competition, will lead to further complaints about market concentration and profiteering along with a torrent of pleas for special treatment--which I think a Trump White House will welcome. As for industrial policy, I think both parties have fully embraced the hands-on idea that we should "favor" the growth of this industry or "protect" the workers in that. This is what we should *expect* in a populist era. And I credit Donald Trump for foreseeing this trend before the Democrats or anyone one else in the GOP could.
The bottom line here is that Demography Unplugged still doesn't appreciate (recognize, accept) the huge leap in financial flexibility that the1970 advent of universal fiat currency (the elimination of money's connection to gold) handed governments that issue their own currency. In that regard, DU is just like most people (even most classical economists), but, unlike most people, DU actually thinks it knows something everyone else doesn't and, accordingly, wrongly tries to spur fear among voters of government "overspending," disparaging them for "ignorance" that isn't ignorant. Social Security is never going to go bankrupt (can't go bankrupt unless Congress decides not to fund it), and increased, direct, federal fiscal spending (such as the candidates are proposing) is a very sound (anti-austerity) public-interest agenda. Read up on Modern Monetary Theory.
I make no claim to knowing something that most people don't. MMT is predicated on the notion that you can indefinitely expand economic output, beyond full employment, by issuing more debt, either in interest-bearing form (bonds) or noninterest-bearing form (currency). Most economists, on both the left and the right, overwhelmingly reject this idea (see polls of economists' opinions about MMT). And most ordinary voters do as well--as I tried to show in my surveys of the public. In this piece, rather, I was trying to explain why it is that voters sometimes go along with particular proposals that directly violate general principles which they agree are absolutely fundamental. It's a sort of "tragedy of the commons" problem that can afflict democracies during times of distrust, polarization, and institutional breakdown.
With Prophets in power and Heroes coming of age?
Donald J. Trump, the archetypal Prophet, has addressed the “deficit problem” … to fire up the economy’s engine and inspire animal spirits. Each candidate has a very different view of “government assistance”. Harris with here centralized command and control “hand-out economy” … Trump with his creating the conditions necessary for peace and prosperity to flourish “hand-up economy”.
I tend to think both candidates are pushing for policies that will inevitably lead to more centralized command and control. Trump's high tariff walls, which will relieve domestic firms of most global price competition, will lead to further complaints about market concentration and profiteering along with a torrent of pleas for special treatment--which I think a Trump White House will welcome. As for industrial policy, I think both parties have fully embraced the hands-on idea that we should "favor" the growth of this industry or "protect" the workers in that. This is what we should *expect* in a populist era. And I credit Donald Trump for foreseeing this trend before the Democrats or anyone one else in the GOP could.