ggait wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:17 pm
This isn't correct. What the left is asking for is a return, ironically, to the 1950's economy in terms of what you call wealth transfer.
We've had this conversation sooo many times before.
Young lefties are basically asking for what my Reagan Democrat father had -- govt guaranteed mortgage via the GI Bill, secure lifetime employment (thanks to his union membership), basically free health care for life, basically free college for himself and his kids, guaranteed retirement from SS and his union pension.
As the lefties correctly claim, all they are really asking for is Ike's GOP platform from 1956. Fact check on that is below.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... was-prett/
That doesn't even come close to addressing what I'm saying so, no, what I'm saying hasn't been covered many times before as if I'm some dolt that can't understand reason or heuristics.
But that would require exactly the same conditions and outcomes. That doesn't exist today. Why is this so difficult to understand. A new environment requires different approaches not "turning back the clock". That's not possible.
Mortgages - what multiple of income was it back then? In the 1980s and before home prices were a much lower multiple of the median income.
Lifetime employment - who can tell me how many companies in the top 1000 in revenues from 1970 exist today? I've worked in high yield, land of dying business models due to disruption and innovation. Ever heard of Polaroid and Kodak? A&P was the largest employer per capita in the early 1960s and gonzo. Westinghouse, ITT, Deluxe Corporation (paper checks), etc. UBI and retraining are the only things that can help this.
-Same with pensions. The unions agreed to allow for present value accounting and not fully funded immediately. It's as much their fault, Union's aren't the salve for all workers problems.
College, run up because of a combination of cheap subsidized student loans and their non profit status allowing the largest elite ones to build gross endowments, in fact they can't by law spend more than 10% in a year or lose TE status.
We created this monster by all of our collective actions, we got the government we deserved and now we have this world that exists today. It's like people believe in ceteris paribus. The conditions and environment allowed for that then, it doesn't now, it requires a different prescription. It's undergrad economics at a liberal arts school. I'm far more comfortable with JHU72s concept of a paradigm change, but I don't believe it's even possible to just "swing the pendulum" the other way while maintaining the same system. Have to be thinking about completely heterodox theories, these arguments still rely on orthodox macroeconomic theory. Does this not make sense to any of these smart folks out there?
I guess I'll always be the chinese fingertrap on here. Have argued for retraining, UBI or something along those lines and other "socialist" (to some) efforts. We simply cannot keep doing the same things. I'd really urge everyone to read Antifragile. Government cannot, ever, keep all people from any negative events or adverse outcomes, that's not possible. The more government tries to protect us and solve all of our collective problems, the larger the fractures (and more frequent) they will be. That's not a good outcome.
