What these analysts from the Washington Post have discerned is that the gap between red and blue or metro vs. retro is significant enough to have the election be decided on so-called moral issues such as late-term abortions and gay rights. I don't believe that this is a religious issue, strictly speaking. It ia almost as if rural citizens view the metropolitan areas as they viewed communism a generation ago. Much misunderstanding here and much healing and elucidating to be done. GOP Won With Accent On Rural and Traditional (washingtonpost.com)
About Me
- Xerxes
- New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
- Admire John McPhee, Bill Bryson, David Remnick, Thomas Merton, Richard Rohr and James Martin (and most open and curious minds)
1 comment:
I think rural America voted the way it did because of the simplicity of Bush's message. They voted based on ideas or concepts they thought they understood. Bush's message was so simple it was almost a non-message. Stating we "need to stay the course" and "we need to be strong" are simple statements. They're technically simple to understand. But they have little meaning. It was easier to vote for someone based on simple statements. They require little effort or time to understand. Rural voters felt comfort in voting for someone who was so plain-spoken that he had a non-message message.
Unfortunately, the Democrats DID have some fairly simple messages that could have been drawn from Kerry's position statements. These messages relate to the general benefits Kerry's policies would have had on our economy. And the obvious mistakes of Bush's neocon economy.
I have tried to simplify them myself, but have had difficulty. Let me try again.
2/3 of economic activity is from consumer spending. (Consumer spending is essentially the value in $'s of aggregate consumer DEMAND.) As per the Wall Street Journal, the markets are "glutted with capital." Corporate profits are up. Wage income has decreased since Bush took office, when adjusted for inflation. Consumer spending has been maintained through borrowing, in spite of decreased consumer income. Consumer debt is now approximately 120% of consumer income. These statements are based on general consensus by economists and on publicly published numbers from the United States Dept. of Labor and Dept. of Commerce.
From the above, does it appear that we need to increase investment to stimulate our economy? Or do we need to stimulate consumer spending by increasing consumer income? It seems obvious to me that consumer spending needs to increase. Investment capital is plentiful. Consumer income is not plentiful. Consumer income would appear to be the current major limit to our economy. And it also appears to be the major defect in our economy. Companies make NO money by simply PRODUCING goods and services. They make money by SELLING those goods and services. Should we be more concerned about producing more goods and services (i.e., increasing the SUPPLY)? Or should we be more concerned about SELLING that supply? These seem like easy questions to answer.
It seems that the benefits of "growing" our economy by stressing DEMAND-side economics is logical. It would have been a very popular position with most Americans. And that is what the Democratic economic policies would have stressed. Unfortunately, this could not be explained in one sentence or one soundbite.
Supply-side economics concerns itself exclusively with benefits that increase supply or decrease production costs. Reduction in corporate taxes and high-end income tax reductions are supply-side benefits. They supposedly encourage investment by providing more money for investment. They may also increase savings, which makes more money available in loans for others to invest. The extra money is supposed to flow to those who will not use it predominatly on consumer spending. Instead the money will be invested to increase production of goods and services. If the markets are "glutted with capital," how will this help?
Could high-end tax cuts and corporate tax cuts hurt? Yes. They increase inflation. Which further reduces consumer buying power. The old adage "Too many dollars chasing too few goods" applies here. Consumers will, in effect, have less money to spend. There will be less demand for goods and services. This will cause further decrease in demand for the labor that produces these goods and services. Which further reduces income for the "2/3 of economic activity provided by consumer spending."
Job outsourcing to foreign countries is a supply-side benefit that reduces production costs by reducing labor costs. If corporations making good profits already, how does this help?
Does outsourcing hurt? Absolutely. Potential American labor income is outsourced along with the jobs. And that outsourced income is not brought back in to the country.
Does free trade help our country? Let's start by determining the major "benefit." It allows American companies to shop globally for the cheapest labor. Consumer income from American labor falls. Is this a "benefit?" What does this do to consumer spending? Will improving the supply-side dynamics increase consumer spending? Will consumers spend more money to buy the increased supply when they have less money to buy it? Will demand increase while consumer income is falling? --http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com
Post a Comment