Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 6
Fox "News" would never stop talking about it if Orange Jesus was in office. There would literally be 24-hour coverage:
- 216,000 new jobs in December, exceeding expectations (Dark Brandon has created 14.3 million total jobs since taking office, the best jobs creation for the first 36 months in office in modern U.S. history)
- 3.7% unemployment rate
- Annual wage growth at nearly 5%
“The December [jobs report] resulted in a net increase of 216,000 in job creation, bringing to a close an extraordinary year in job creation,” Joe Brusuelas, RSM US principal and chief economist, wrote in a note issued Friday. “During the past year unemployment averaged 3.6% and closed the year at 3.7% in what the best year for labor since was the 1950s.”
In January of last year, the unemployment rate fell to 3.4%, hitting a level not seen since May 1969, two months before Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon.
In April 2023, the unemployment rate for Black workers hit a record low of 4.7%.
And then in June, the labor force participation rate for women in their prime working age (25-54 years old) hit an all-time high of 77.8%.If these numbers were attained by Orange Jesus, the cult would want to do away with the presidency and anoint him Emperor for Life.
But hey, vote for the self-described genius who lost 2.8 million jobs in four years, the worst jobs record since the Great Depression.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/economy/jobs-report...
No. of Recommendations: 2
If these numbers were attained by Orange Jesus, the cult would want to do away with the presidency and anoint him Emperor for Life.
But hey, vote for the self-described genius who lost 2.8 million jobs in four years, the worst jobs record since the Great Depression.
Polling shows that people who are demonstrably better off still don't think so. And if you are in the right wing media bubble all you will hear is doom and gloom.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Polling shows that people who are demonstrably better off still don't think so. And if you are in the right wing media bubble all you will hear is doom and gloom. - ges
---------------------
And if you are in the left wing media bubble all you will hear is losing our democracy, Hitler, and climate Armageddon. Cheerful Stuff.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Fox "News" would never stop talking about it if Orange Jesus was in office. There would literally be 24-hour coverage
True. And there's a reason why left-leaning media isn't doing the same thing.
The data you cite are conventional measures of economic success. But the progressive theory of the economy is that it is broken - rigged against the ordinary person, unfair to the little guy, and riven through with inequality of outcome and opportunity. Conventional economic success (job growth and low unemployment) does nothing to address these deep, fundamental flaws with capitalism.
At the end of the day, "Bidenomics" represents the sort of status quo economy that progressives have criticized for years. Progressives wanted big, bold changes to the core structure of the economy. Many efforts in that direction were originally included in the various big bills in the first congressional term (when Democrats controlled the House), but nearly all of them got stripped out. The combined Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Build Back Better Act (rebranded as the Inflation Reduction Act) ended up mostly being the kind of conventional economic stimulus measures you could see from any Democratic Administration (and not a few Republican ones) going back to the FDR days. There's nothing in those measures that wouldn't have been at home in a Clinton, or even a Carter, Administration.
The only area that the Administration really went all-in on progressive priorities was in climate change (the IRA ended up being more a Green bill than anything else). But because it's taken so long for any of that money to work its way into actual projects, and because progressives are so disappointed on so many other fronts with climate change, that hasn't made any of them happy - and it certainly hasn't translated into much positive media coverage for Biden.
Biden's delivered economic growth and a well-performing labor market that is mostly a continuation of the status quo, with some minor progressive tweaks - something that centrists will delight in, but few others will be enthusiastic about. Or draw much of a contrast with Trump, who similarly presided over a pretty good economy (by conventional measures) until Covid kicked in, but with lower interest rates and lower prices.
No. of Recommendations: 8
albaby1: Or draw much of a contrast with Trump, who similarly presided over a pretty good economy (by conventional measures) until Covid kicked in, but with lower interest rates and lower prices.
Right. How lucky for Biden that COVID was long gone when he assumed the presidency.
albaby1: The only area that the Administration really went all-in on progressive priorities was in climate change...
Yeah, too bad he got zero student debt cancellation, didn't expand ACA coverage access, no TPS, no gun safety legislation, didn't walk the picket line with union workers.
But here's the deal: no president achieves every goal in a first term.
If progressives think they'll be better off with Trump back in the White House, then they can sit at home, not vote, vote for a third-party candidate in protest, or whine and complain that Biden isn't progressive enough.
Or they can mobilize, coalesce, and work to reelect the only candidate who might actually help them push for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, expanding Social Security, paid family leave, the care agenda, a $15 minimum wage, and fair taxes on the rich.
This ain't exactly rocket science here.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But the progressive theory of the economy is that it is broken - rigged against the ordinary person, unfair to the little guy, and riven through with inequality of outcome and opportunity. Conventional economic success (job growth and low unemployment) does nothing to address these deep, fundamental flaws with capitalism.- Albaby
----------------------
Wow! Progressive thinking on display. "Inequality of Outcome" is an essential component of meritocracy. It motivates achievement and efficiency. But the progressive dogma won't allow it.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Right. How lucky for Biden that COVID was long gone when he assumed the presidency.
No one claimed that. Any fair assessment of Biden's economic performance includes the recovery from Covid. But if you want to form an accurate assessment of how the economy performed under the Trump will also recognize that Covid had an enormous impact on the U.S. (and global) economy. Up until Covid, the economy under Trump was also characterized by very low unemployment and consistent economic growth, and it also featured lower prices and lower interest rates. So simply pointing to things like low unemployment and solid (though not spectacular) economic growth is not likely to be all that strong an economic performance.
If progressives think they'll be better off with Trump back in the White House, then they can sit at home, not vote, vote for a third-party candidate in protest, or whine and complain that Biden isn't progressive enough.
Or they can mobilize, coalesce, and work to reelect the only candidate who might actually help them push for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, expanding Social Security, paid family leave, the care agenda, a $15 minimum wage, and fair taxes on the rich.
Right now, that's exactly what progressives are acting like that's what they're going to do: "sit at home, not vote, vote for a third-party candidate in protest, or whine and complain that Biden isn't progressive enough." Not because they think they'll be better off with Trump, but because Biden didn't really get them any of the things that you describe there - and almost certainly isn't going to be able to do it in a second term, either.
Many of those things were originally in the BBB/IRA legislative proposals, but they mostly got cut or whittled down to nearly nothing. That was probably unavoidable. When you're governing, you have to actually prioritize things. So when considering Green funding, the "care agenda," paid family leave, and expanding Social Security (to say nothing of the expanded child tax credit)....well, the Biden Administration prioritized the first at the expense of all the other proposals. They put their money on Green. It's not much of a surprise that their wager didn't pay off, because the types of things that the IRA will fund to fight climate change will take a long time to actually be visible (much less have an impact). Oh, and voters don't prioritize fighting climate change all that much.
As we get closer to the election, maybe the progressives will come back to the fold and be energized to strongly support Biden again. But right now, they're not - and it's no surprise that the progressive media outlets that cater to those voters aren't singing his praises. They're very unhappy with Biden's priorities, and the fact that he's governed way to the center from where they wanted him to be doesn't help.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Wow! Progressive thinking on display. "Inequality of Outcome" is an essential component of meritocracy. It motivates achievement and efficiency. But the progressive dogma won't allow it.
Not really. One of the key components of progressive economic thought is pointing out that outcomes don't entirely depend on merit. Two people can be just as smart, and work just as hard - but one can have much better outcomes than the other for reasons that have nothing to do with merit.
Put those reasons into two big buckets. One is just blind chance. Two people can have the same business plan, the same level of business skill, and the same level of hard work - but one might succeed dramatically and the other might fail through nothing under their control. Farmer A has good weather, Farmer B gets a drought. Retail Shopkeeper X gets an unexpected boon when a major attraction opens up near their store, while Retail Shopkeeper Y goes out of business because they were further away. Restauranteur Alpha builds a huge successful following; Restauranteur Omega manifests a genetically-caused illness that keeps them from working. Etc. Success and failure are sometimes - frequently in the telling of progressives - due to luck completely outside of "merit." As Warren Buffett has pointed out, if he had been born in rural China instead of the U.S., all of his skills and capabilities at efficiently allocating capital would have been useless - there is a component of initial luck in everything he has achieved in his life.
The second is structural and societal. Two kids can be just as smart and hardworking and "meritorious" - but the one who has parents that went to college is far, far more likely to themselves go to college than the one who didn't. They have far, far different life outcomes not because of merit, but because society is structured in a certain way. Racism, sexism, prejudice against various religious or sexual minorities. Even your accent can shape what happens to you in life, whether you have success or not regardless of how hard you try and how good you are.
Reasonable minds disagree on how much society can or should respond to these things. Progressives, save for the most hardcore Marxists, do not insist that everyone's outcome should be exactly the same in every situation. They do, however, advocate for a greater response to the inequalities of outcome that arise from fickle fortune and existing unfairness in the system.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Reasonable minds disagree on how much society can or should respond to these things. Progressives, save for the most hardcore Marxists, do not insist that everyone's outcome should be exactly the same in every situation. They do, however, advocate for a greater response to the inequalities of outcome that arise from fickle fortune and existing unfairness in the system.
-------------------
Didn't quote your whole post but it all spot on. Recognizing that unequal outcomes are inevitable and some portion of those result from prejudices, that possibility is used to defend those who don't deserve it. Example, what's her name Gay forced out of Harvard Pres. Why? Her obtuse testimony before congress plus 50 cases of plagiarism. No, not that. Her resignation statement dismissed the testimony and the plagiarism and identified the true reason, "hounded by conservatives driven by racial animus."
Ahhh. The old familiar race card, will it ever stop being played? She was a DEI hire, the kind that Al Sharpton is spouting off about right now. I think the race card will never go away as long as it so effectively transforms failure into victim-hood.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Example, what's her name Gay forced out of Harvard Pres.
That's getting a little far afield of the topic at hand.
Suffice it to say that progressives were hoping for some movement towards significant structural changes to the U.S. economy, changes that would reflect their priorities. I think some (though not all) had gotten resigned to the fact that the filibuster in the Senate would prevent them from achieving a lot of their non-economic goals. But there were a lot of progressive wishlist items that could have gone into the reconciliation package, and many of them were in fact included in the initial bills. But nearly all of the non-climate ones (and a few of the climate ones) got dropped.
There's no audience among progressives for rigorous praise of Bidenomics. So while Fox was out there talking nonstop about the low unemployment and continued GDP growth under the Trump Administration (until Covid), you don't have the same playing out in left-leaning media. Progressives believe that a well-functioning status quo late-stage capitalist economy is unfair - so none of them are all that happy that Biden has delivered a fairly well-functioning status quo late-stage capitalist economy.
No. of Recommendations: 10
BHM: Wow! Progressive thinking on display. "Inequality of Outcome" is an essential component of meritocracy. It motivates achievement and efficiency. But the progressive dogma won't allow it.
Hi Mike, may I ask where you studied economics? (And please don't say on twitter! lol)
How much money did DJ Trump inherit from his folks? How about Mitt Romney? Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott? Paris Hilton? Edward “Ned” Johnson III, who took over Fidelity from his father in 1977?
How wealthy are Elon Musks parents and how did that money help him? Is that how a "meritocracy" works?
From a recent MF article:
"Only 27% of the ultra wealthy are self made: It defines them as people with a "middle-class or poor upbringing and no inheritance."
"A full 46% had a head start: Almost half the super rich either had some inherited wealth or an affluent upbringing."
"And 28% have legacy wealth: People with both an affluent background and inherited money."
"Most of the wealth accumulated by new billionaires in 2023 came from inheritance, overtaking self-made wealth for the first time in the nine editions of a study by UBS."
If my net worth is considerably higher than yours, do you think that's because I worked harder than you or I am smarter than you? (a meritocracy would say yes!)
Or perhaps, my upbringing gave me some educational and financial advantages that you didn't receive?
I think you know that America is not really a "meritocracy" but your conservative dogma won't allow you to admit it.
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/a...https://www.investopedia.com/more-billionaire-weal...
No. of Recommendations: 0
There's no audience among progressives for rigorous praise of Bidenomics. So while Fox was out there talking nonstop about the low unemployment and continued GDP growth under the Trump Administration (until Covid), you don't have the same playing out in left-leaning media. Progressives believe that a well-functioning status quo late-stage capitalist economy is unfair - so none of them are all that happy that Biden has delivered a fairly well-functioning status quo late-stage capitalist economy. - Albaby</I
-----------------
Well put
But at least, Biden did provide them with a boatload of college debt relief they did not deserve and now Biden is talking phase 2 despite the SCOTUS ruling. And still Biden hasn't bought their love?? I suppose that is as futile as paying Iran to like us.
No. of Recommendations: 9
albaby1: But if you want to form an accurate assessment of how the economy performed under the Trump will also recognize that Covid had an enormous impact on the U.S. (and global) economy.
Well, yeah, he totally f***ed up the response to the pandemic. So while I agree with you that the pandemic was a Black Swan event, I completely disagree that he was at the mercy of factors totally outside of his control. He mismanaged every aspect of the pandemic except fast-tracking the vaccine... and then he f***ed that up eventually too.
albaby1: They're very unhappy with Biden's priorities, and the fact that he's governed way to the center from where they wanted him to be doesn't help.
Yeah, well, you can't fix stupid.
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Inequality of Outcome" is an essential component of meritocracy.
Predatory capitalism does not foster meritocracy. It values the labor of humans as an expense to be reduced as ruthlessly as possible. The human consequence is of no concern to a guy like the 'King of Foreclosure" Steve Mnuchin (the orange rapists SecTreas).
"Meritocracy: A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement."
As "Inequality of Outcome" manifests in a capitalist society, the devalued laborers will produce soaring homeless population with soaring crime.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, yeah, he totally f***ed up the response to the pandemic. So while I agree with you that the pandemic was a Black Swan event, I completely disagree that he was at the mercy of factors totally outside of his control. He mismanaged every aspect of the pandemic except fast-tracking the vaccine... and then he f***ed that up eventually too.
A valid perspective...but one that's a little beside the point we're talking about here. Prior to Covid, the economy under Trump was doing fairly well, under conventional measures. Unemployment was really low, growth was solid (though not extraordinary). Inflation rates - and especially gas prices - were low, and interest rates were low.
Yeah, well, you can't fix stupid.
Well, Biden needs to fix it. He needs progressives if he's going to win re-election. Without them coming out to vote, and volunteering their time and energy to his campaign, he's got an uphill climb. Pointing to job creation figures over and over again and expecting that to have a different result, when that's not the issue they care about, isn't going to help.
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<BHM: Wow! Progressive thinking on display. "Inequality of Outcome" is an essential component of meritocracy. It motivates achievement and efficiency. But the progressive dogma won't allow it.>>
Never read the bible? Classic MAGA Christian!
God says merit has nothing to do with it...
"The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.” Ecclesiastes 9:11
“The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.” Proverbs 29:7
"The wicked do not plead the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people? Declares the LORD. On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?” Jer. 5:28
You are like the opposite of Jesus...
Who would the be?
Hmmm...
No. of Recommendations: 2
albaby1: A valid perspective...but one that's a little beside the point we're talking about here.
Is it, though? What you seem to be saying is this: "That was a pretty good game he pitched. He took a 3-hit shut out into the 7th inning before he gave up that grand slam and went on to lose 4-1."
It's the whole game that matters, not just until the seventh inning stretch.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I disagree. Because actually, two (or three) things CAN be true at the same time.
We ARE a meritocracy - to a degree.
But just because we *can* succeed - even with the accelerators of money and intelligence - doesn't mean we do.
Plenty of examples of people coming from nothing or not much to become very successful - in a variety of ways - and happy, to varying degrees, for a variety of reasons.
There are also plenty of examples of people born with having everything and all the advantages to blowing it and blowing the family up in a generation or two. Does having everything make it easier? So obvious it goes without saying. Cherrypicked examples don't help.
The important point is the freedom to not have "too much" of the money or the freedom confiscated by a government.
