If I understand correctly the White House proposes transfers to prop up state and municipal governments. From what I have read, many US states and municipalities are not fiscally equipped to deal with a unexpected emergency like this pandemic.
I hope Biden sticks to the programme and essentially ignores the Marxist Senators from Trump's Republican Party.
I always thought they were more Leninist than Marxist, but hey ho.
I was referring to the tax-cut driven increase in deficit-financed fiscal expenditures during the reign of Trump I. The exact opposite of what conservative Keynesian business cycle management would call for. But I get the Lenin reference.
Maybe Americans find themselves between a rock and hard place but frankly, I say screw the bi-partisanship and do what you have to do to get the pandemic under control. Place the country on an almost war-like footing and then play bi-partisan footsies with the republicans later. Economic outcomes will not sustainably improve until this threat is under control.
Borrowing costs are low, interest payments are manageable and the government should exploit that to fully gear up.
If I understand correctly the White House proposes transfers to prop up state and municipal governments. From what I have read, many US states and municipalities are not fiscally equipped to deal with a unexpected emergency like this pandemic.
I hope Biden sticks to the programme and essentially ignores the Marxist Senators from Trump's Republican Party.
I always thought they were more Leninist than Marxist, but hey ho.
If I understand correctly the White House proposes transfers to prop up state and municipal governments. From what I have read, many US states and municipalities are not fiscally equipped to deal with a unexpected emergency like this pandemic.
I hope Biden sticks to the programme and essentially ignores the Marxist Senators from Trump's Republican Party.
More aid? Why not work? The west coast is still dealing with the devastation of wildfires...plenty of work there to clean/repair. Storm damage in the south. What city doesnt need a little repair, shine around the edges? I get the initial aid response to the pandemic, but now? Put people to work, dont give them a handout they dont really want.
I think there's merit there. And precedent - the WPA and CCC, for example. Displaced people need somewhere to live - use existing park facilities, some built by CCC crews, for starters. Pay people to work - clearing storm and fire debris, cleaning flooded but otherwise safe homes, cooking meals for work crews, delivering food/supplies to folks who can't work, the list is endless. Even stuff like setting up a computer and getting people (re)connected.
Here in Austin 'Discount Electronics' has truckloads of lease-return computers of all shapes and sizes. They can't possibly sell all of them, no matter how cheaply they're listed. Donate them (tax write off) and set up information centers where people can get information. For that matter, donate them to individuals for remote working, online school, surfing pron: you know, the essentials.
The 'rona isn't going away anytime soon. Natural disasters are not going to stop. Sure FEMA and whatnot have their place, but we need a larger, and more personal, mobilization. c.
More aid? Why not work? The west coast is still dealing with the devastation of wildfires...plenty of work there to clean/repair. Storm damage in the south. What city doesnt need a little repair, shine around the edges? I get the initial aid response to the pandemic, but now? Put people to work, dont give them a handout they dont really want.
You know when people complain that everything is now politics?
GDP is a financial number. It doesn't identify fat people, poor people, billionaires, efficiency, medical availability, immigration...it's a number. I thought it was interesting to see that California is roughly the financial size of the UK. You don't...OK. New Jersey having the financial throughput of Switzerland isn't making anyone vote differently...is it?
Next time you walk past a mirror, ask "am I the type of person pushing people to vote for Trump?"
Actually GDP is part of the System of National Accounts. That place where statisticians do the national book keeping. GDP is not a financial number. It is a measure of economic value; it is a flow number; it does not capture national wealth per capita, for example, which in passing is much harder to measure because financial concepts and measures are so important.
Economists got over GDP as an indicator of economic performance a long time ago. Per capita real wealth is the preferred number in many quarters. Moreover, much output such as 'home production' is never monetized but is most valuable all the same. But nobody serious limits themselves to just one indicator. (Besides, complexity sells....)
Socio-economic output indicators try to go beyond annual income and capture meaningful wealth, e.g., indicators of health and education. In that respect, many small European countries with stable populations, i.e., near zero population growth, exhibit outstanding socio-economic outcomes.
rgio, I am probably far more conservative on many policies than you are so let's not go there, please.
I apologize for coming down so hard on you. Unnecessary. Probably twigging off my own fears of population growth.
So what made you bring up this nonsense? Let me guess.
+ rgio does not care about the welfare of lower-income working Americans.
+ rgio believes that obesity and a whole host co-related health outcomes are positive for economic productivity and national security
No, I do not like the map. Next time, you pass a mirror. Ask yourself: "Am I partially responsible for the election of President Trump?"
You know when people complain that everything is now politics?
GDP is a financial number. It doesn't identify fat people, poor people, billionaires, efficiency, medical availability, immigration...it's a number. I thought it was interesting to see that California is roughly the financial size of the UK. You don't...OK. New Jersey having the financial throughput of Switzerland isn't making anyone vote differently...is it?
Next time you walk past a mirror, ask "am I the type of person pushing people to vote for Trump?"
This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US â demographically and economically â really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
SInce you brought it up....
Of course that's your contention. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian â Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year â you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
So you like the map?
So what made you bring up this nonsense? Let me guess.
+ rgio does not care about the welfare of lower-income working Americans.
+ rgio believes that obesity and a whole host co-related health outcomes are positive for economic productivity and national security
No, I do not like the map. Next time, you pass a mirror. Ask yourself: "Am I partially responsible for the election of President Trump?"
This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US â demographically and economically â really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
SInce you brought it up....
Of course that's your contention. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian — Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year — you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US — demographically and economically — really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
