We need sensible conservatives to vote Democrat in big numbers in the next election in order to drive a stake through the heart of the ignorant, destructive MAGA movement. I'm a liberal democrat, but I want to see a strong, smart conservative movement again, one that lives in the real world.
There are indeed economic downsides to populism, but economic policy is not only about math. It’s also about morality. The fact that no higher-ups at big banks were punished in 2008 has empowered populists. There may be economic benefits to various deregulations, but it’s fair and reasonable to oppose them if they take power and dignity away from the working classes and give it to CEOs. Biden has done a good job combining left-leaning economics with a commitment to democratic norms. Hopefully it’s enough to defeat Trump again (although I’d feel better if he broke with the cultural left on immigration and trans rights).
After the S&L crisis of the 1980s, there were hundreds (or more) prosecutions. After the GFC there were just a few (and none at high levels as you point out). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as his Secretary of the Treasury. I viewed this appointment as an 'own goal' back then. I still do.
Overall, with 20-20 hindsight, I rate deregulation of transportation as a success. Deregulation of finance as a failure. I rate deregulation of utilities as more-or-less neutral. To be sure, I know little of these cases.
The basic claims here are an easily dis-proven lies. Real wages rose under Trump. See Fred Series “Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over (LES1252881600Q)”. Of course, unemployment was low and declining. See Fred Series “Unemployment Rate (UNRATE)”. Of course, the (pre-Biden) inflation rate was also low. See Fred Series “Trimmed Mean PCE Inflation Rate (PCETRIM12M159SFRBDAL)”.
It is not true. Trump's period was very bad for the US economy in general, even before the pandemic. Trump only managed to benefit certain workers but not most of them.
It is apparent that you have a reading comprehension 'problem'. Note that I used median income statistics, not average income statistics. That means 'most'. I provided inflation statistics that impact almost everyone (that means 'most'). I provided unemployment statistics that impact almost everyone (that means 'most'). Here is quote that obviously applies to you. "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Of course, I have provided plenty of evidence.
Also, it is not enough to look at certain wages. One of the main problems with politicians as Trump is the misusage of public spending and central-banking, as well in preventing people to trade and exchange globally. Thereby, bad politicians as Trump are preventing and hindering reduction of poverty worldwide.
Do you know what the word 'median' even means? Look it up (you can use something called a 'dictionary') and retract your comments. Pre-Covid Trump's budget deficits were inline with other presidents.. Note that Obama ran huge deficits in response to the GFC (and Trump's deficits were huge in response to Covid). US imports rose under Trump (see FRED series IEAMGSN). It is hard to find statistics, but global poverty appears to have continued to decline under Trump (pre-Covid).
You have not provided plenty of evidence. The point is that right-wing populist and nationalist politics are bad for economy. Since such policies do not generate higher wealth, quality of life and benefits as compared to for example liberal and globalist politics.
I guess statistics for real, median income, unemployment, and inflation are 'not plenty of evidence'. So good to know. I guess 3 to 0 is actually losing. So good to know. So far you have provided nothing other than your religion. I guess that makes sense.
I do not think that you understand the problem here. Wages can increase, as for certain groups, for different reasons. They can increase spontaneously due to multiple and complex interactions between humans. They can increase as in Russia because of the government spending on the war. The point is that politicians as Trump make decisions that make some people richer and better economically but not the majority, especially when analysing economics at the global level. It is also because politicians as Trump are discriminating people and preventing humans to cooperate and exchange things between countries and world regions. So your "evidence", is not enough. Try to read books and analytical publications about the economy in the USA and world before, during and after Trump's presidency period.
This is hilarious given the vast archives of historical and present evidence of leftist authoritarian economic collapse, including the collapse of Western working class economic health caused by the elite establishment globalist authoritarian that keep sounding their fake alarms of threat from a retreat from their destructive power.
You don’t seem to know enough about logistics challenges and the geopolitical realties of a world no longer supported by the US policing and funding the post WWII Global Order. I chuckle with this opinion that technology and automation will continue to “level” the people of the world as juvenile idealism lacking wisdom of history, human nature and the fact that economies run on real tangible products and services and not the trade of bits and bytes. Where will all the raw materials and assemblies that make that marvelous machine you used to type this opinion come from? How will they safely and affordably traverse the world back and forth until they arrive as a final product for sale at your local mobile service retailer? And as an aside, how will you afford to pay for that product if your job is done by a robot?
One of many problems with right-wing populism and nationalism is a state-centric and mythological views on economy where the nation is seen as some highest level of social order. For politicians as Orban, individuals are not trading and exchanging with each. Instead, the mythological views is that nations/countries trade with each other. That is one of the reasons they cannot understand or imagine a world where the economy is integrated and regulated from local to global level.
Countries (you have heard of them) have imposed trade restrictions from time immemorial. Sometimes they have been highly successful and sometime they have failed. For example, Mexico averaged 6.6% economic growth with trade restriction (1960 to 1980) and just 2.3% with ‘free trade” (since 1980). By contrast, under Enver Hoxha, Albania failed at everything (economic).
Btw, there is no 100% free trade as between USA and Mexico. It depends partially on that all economic behaviours are regulated officially or unofficially. But I think that there should be free trade between the USA and Mexico just as there is trade between people in New Mexico and New York.
I think that you are wrong. The general research about economics shows that trade restrictions are simply bad for trade, wealth and economy. Also, economic growth can be bad in practice if for example a government is investing a lot of money on roads that are inefficient but look good on paper regarding GDP. Even Albania had economic growth as because of the money from China and Yugoslavia. So I am not sure about "some of them" you have in mind but the question is why do you wish for arbitrary, discriminatory and populist restrictions? Do you for example want trade and movement restrictions as between California and Texas, or between cities in the USA? Here in Stockholm, Sweden where I live there are different prices and wages in different parts of the city. I do not hear anybody calling for "successful restrictions" in order to benefit a certain part of the city. Thereby, economic research, as by presented in this article goes against your assumptions.
"After more than two decades of application of neoliberal economic policies in the
developing world, we are in a position to pass unequivocal judgment on their record. The picture is not pretty.
Consider economic growth first. In Latin America, only three countries have grown faster during the 1990s than in the 1950-80 period. One of these three was Argentina, a country whose hopes of economic salvation through financial integration with the world economy now lie in ruins. A second was Uruguay, also in deep trouble. Only Chile looks like a long-term success. Among the former socialist economies, real output still stands below 1990 levels in all but four of them. And poverty rates remain higher than in 1990 even in Poland, unquestionably the most successful of the East European countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, results remain very disappointing, and far worse than those obtained prior to the late 1970s.
Moreover, this record on growth has been accompanied by worsening income inequalities and deep economic insecurity in most of the countries that have adopted the Washington Consensus agenda. Frequent and painful financial crises have ravaged Mexico, East Asia, Brazil, Russia, Argentina, and Turkey. Brazil is currently undergoing the devastating consequences of yet another reversal in market sentimentYa reversal for which it is very difficult to identify solid, fundamental reasons.
The few instances of success have taken place in countries that have marched to their own drummers and are hardly poster children for neoliberalism. Such is the case of China, Vietnam, IndiaYthree important countries which have violated virtually all the rules in the neoliberal guidebook even while moving in a more market-oriented direction."
I looked up the actual economic growth statistics for Hungary (FRED series NYGDPPCAPKDHUN). They are rather good. Perhaps Orban knows something you don't.
I think that you are doing several misstakes here. For example, Argentina has since 2000s been more of a protectionist and interventionist style economy, not neoliberal nor more global. Also, academics as Rodrik have been proven wrong in several ways. Washington Consensus was not a bad thing in general but the world needs to become a unified economy and polity in order for more people to have better socioeconomic life and opportunities.
"In 2002, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz claimed that “globalization has become a race to the bottom, where corporations are the only winners and the rest of society, in both the developed and developing worlds, is the loser.”
Around the turn of the millennium, the fear of such a race to the bottom started haunting the debate about economic globalization. As capital and corporations became freer to move across borders, many worried that they would move to places with the lowest wages, worst working conditions, and least environmental protection. People believed that governments would be tempted to loosen standards to attract more investments and increase its participation in global supply chains.
But since then, the opposite has happened. The overall direction is one toward better jobs, higher wages, safer workplaces, and less child labor, and it has happened the fastest in the countries that have opened the most and are most integrated in global supply chains."
The basic claims here are an easily dis-proven lies. Real wages rose under Trump. See Fred Series “Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over (LES1252881600Q)”. Of course, unemployment was low and declining. See Fred Series “Unemployment Rate (UNRATE)”. Of course, the (pre-Biden) inflation rate was also low. See Fred Series “Trimmed Mean PCE Inflation Rate (PCETRIM12M159SFRBDAL)”.
The title of this article should read "The Economic Cost of Populism." To broaden the point, all elites strive to maintain their power. This is the well-argued thesis of "Why Nations Fail," by economists Acemoglu and Robinson.
Emphasizing MAGA shifts attention from the populist policies of the left, from which we are currently suffering the inflationary consequences, and from the more general point that of all elites strive to rig the political and economic system so as to retail power.
Liberal societies have larger GDP per head at PPP but how then to explain the rise of autocratic regimes and illiberal governments? Is this just a broader reflection of the undermining of core liberal values and institutions?
We need sensible conservatives to vote Democrat in big numbers in the next election in order to drive a stake through the heart of the ignorant, destructive MAGA movement. I'm a liberal democrat, but I want to see a strong, smart conservative movement again, one that lives in the real world.
In the 'real world', Trump was quite successful (see above). You just don't like it.
There are indeed economic downsides to populism, but economic policy is not only about math. It’s also about morality. The fact that no higher-ups at big banks were punished in 2008 has empowered populists. There may be economic benefits to various deregulations, but it’s fair and reasonable to oppose them if they take power and dignity away from the working classes and give it to CEOs. Biden has done a good job combining left-leaning economics with a commitment to democratic norms. Hopefully it’s enough to defeat Trump again (although I’d feel better if he broke with the cultural left on immigration and trans rights).
After the S&L crisis of the 1980s, there were hundreds (or more) prosecutions. After the GFC there were just a few (and none at high levels as you point out). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as his Secretary of the Treasury. I viewed this appointment as an 'own goal' back then. I still do.
Overall, with 20-20 hindsight, I rate deregulation of transportation as a success. Deregulation of finance as a failure. I rate deregulation of utilities as more-or-less neutral. To be sure, I know little of these cases.
The basic claims here are an easily dis-proven lies. Real wages rose under Trump. See Fred Series “Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over (LES1252881600Q)”. Of course, unemployment was low and declining. See Fred Series “Unemployment Rate (UNRATE)”. Of course, the (pre-Biden) inflation rate was also low. See Fred Series “Trimmed Mean PCE Inflation Rate (PCETRIM12M159SFRBDAL)”.
It is not true. Trump's period was very bad for the US economy in general, even before the pandemic. Trump only managed to benefit certain workers but not most of them.
It is apparent that you have a reading comprehension 'problem'. Note that I used median income statistics, not average income statistics. That means 'most'. I provided inflation statistics that impact almost everyone (that means 'most'). I provided unemployment statistics that impact almost everyone (that means 'most'). Here is quote that obviously applies to you. "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Of course, I have provided plenty of evidence.
Also, it is not enough to look at certain wages. One of the main problems with politicians as Trump is the misusage of public spending and central-banking, as well in preventing people to trade and exchange globally. Thereby, bad politicians as Trump are preventing and hindering reduction of poverty worldwide.
Do you know what the word 'median' even means? Look it up (you can use something called a 'dictionary') and retract your comments. Pre-Covid Trump's budget deficits were inline with other presidents.. Note that Obama ran huge deficits in response to the GFC (and Trump's deficits were huge in response to Covid). US imports rose under Trump (see FRED series IEAMGSN). It is hard to find statistics, but global poverty appears to have continued to decline under Trump (pre-Covid).
You have not provided plenty of evidence. The point is that right-wing populist and nationalist politics are bad for economy. Since such policies do not generate higher wealth, quality of life and benefits as compared to for example liberal and globalist politics.
I guess statistics for real, median income, unemployment, and inflation are 'not plenty of evidence'. So good to know. I guess 3 to 0 is actually losing. So good to know. So far you have provided nothing other than your religion. I guess that makes sense.
I do not think that you understand the problem here. Wages can increase, as for certain groups, for different reasons. They can increase spontaneously due to multiple and complex interactions between humans. They can increase as in Russia because of the government spending on the war. The point is that politicians as Trump make decisions that make some people richer and better economically but not the majority, especially when analysing economics at the global level. It is also because politicians as Trump are discriminating people and preventing humans to cooperate and exchange things between countries and world regions. So your "evidence", is not enough. Try to read books and analytical publications about the economy in the USA and world before, during and after Trump's presidency period.
Do you know what the word 'median' even means? Look it up (you can use something called a 'dictionary') and retract your comments.
This is hilarious given the vast archives of historical and present evidence of leftist authoritarian economic collapse, including the collapse of Western working class economic health caused by the elite establishment globalist authoritarian that keep sounding their fake alarms of threat from a retreat from their destructive power.
Did you even read the article?
Post-industrial development is less about globalism and more about automatisation
You don’t seem to know enough about logistics challenges and the geopolitical realties of a world no longer supported by the US policing and funding the post WWII Global Order. I chuckle with this opinion that technology and automation will continue to “level” the people of the world as juvenile idealism lacking wisdom of history, human nature and the fact that economies run on real tangible products and services and not the trade of bits and bytes. Where will all the raw materials and assemblies that make that marvelous machine you used to type this opinion come from? How will they safely and affordably traverse the world back and forth until they arrive as a final product for sale at your local mobile service retailer? And as an aside, how will you afford to pay for that product if your job is done by a robot?
You can also buy stuff from AI staff today ;)
One of many problems with right-wing populism and nationalism is a state-centric and mythological views on economy where the nation is seen as some highest level of social order. For politicians as Orban, individuals are not trading and exchanging with each. Instead, the mythological views is that nations/countries trade with each other. That is one of the reasons they cannot understand or imagine a world where the economy is integrated and regulated from local to global level.
Countries (you have heard of them) have imposed trade restrictions from time immemorial. Sometimes they have been highly successful and sometime they have failed. For example, Mexico averaged 6.6% economic growth with trade restriction (1960 to 1980) and just 2.3% with ‘free trade” (since 1980). By contrast, under Enver Hoxha, Albania failed at everything (economic).
Btw, there is no 100% free trade as between USA and Mexico. It depends partially on that all economic behaviours are regulated officially or unofficially. But I think that there should be free trade between the USA and Mexico just as there is trade between people in New Mexico and New York.
I think that you are wrong. The general research about economics shows that trade restrictions are simply bad for trade, wealth and economy. Also, economic growth can be bad in practice if for example a government is investing a lot of money on roads that are inefficient but look good on paper regarding GDP. Even Albania had economic growth as because of the money from China and Yugoslavia. So I am not sure about "some of them" you have in mind but the question is why do you wish for arbitrary, discriminatory and populist restrictions? Do you for example want trade and movement restrictions as between California and Texas, or between cities in the USA? Here in Stockholm, Sweden where I live there are different prices and wages in different parts of the city. I do not hear anybody calling for "successful restrictions" in order to benefit a certain part of the city. Thereby, economic research, as by presented in this article goes against your assumptions.
Most of what you are claiming in quite debatable. Quote from "AFTER NEOLIBERALISM, WHAT ?" (http://cemi.ehess.fr/docannexe/file/2787/rodrik2002.pdf)
"After more than two decades of application of neoliberal economic policies in the
developing world, we are in a position to pass unequivocal judgment on their record. The picture is not pretty.
Consider economic growth first. In Latin America, only three countries have grown faster during the 1990s than in the 1950-80 period. One of these three was Argentina, a country whose hopes of economic salvation through financial integration with the world economy now lie in ruins. A second was Uruguay, also in deep trouble. Only Chile looks like a long-term success. Among the former socialist economies, real output still stands below 1990 levels in all but four of them. And poverty rates remain higher than in 1990 even in Poland, unquestionably the most successful of the East European countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, results remain very disappointing, and far worse than those obtained prior to the late 1970s.
Moreover, this record on growth has been accompanied by worsening income inequalities and deep economic insecurity in most of the countries that have adopted the Washington Consensus agenda. Frequent and painful financial crises have ravaged Mexico, East Asia, Brazil, Russia, Argentina, and Turkey. Brazil is currently undergoing the devastating consequences of yet another reversal in market sentimentYa reversal for which it is very difficult to identify solid, fundamental reasons.
The few instances of success have taken place in countries that have marched to their own drummers and are hardly poster children for neoliberalism. Such is the case of China, Vietnam, IndiaYthree important countries which have violated virtually all the rules in the neoliberal guidebook even while moving in a more market-oriented direction."
I have read several of Rodrik's articles. Do you wish me to read this one as well and send you some feedback?
I looked up the actual economic growth statistics for Hungary (FRED series NYGDPPCAPKDHUN). They are rather good. Perhaps Orban knows something you don't.
Orban know how to be a criminal and dismantle democracy
Are you kidding or? Hungary is still one of the poorest countries in the EU. Also, in Hungary there is a term in the language called "Fidesz közeli cegek" = A Fidesz owened company. http://www.aei.org/publication/viktor-orban-and-the-corruption-of-conservatism/
Speaking about Washington Consensus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-bTUKsqleQ
I think that you are doing several misstakes here. For example, Argentina has since 2000s been more of a protectionist and interventionist style economy, not neoliberal nor more global. Also, academics as Rodrik have been proven wrong in several ways. Washington Consensus was not a bad thing in general but the world needs to become a unified economy and polity in order for more people to have better socioeconomic life and opportunities.
"In 2002, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz claimed that “globalization has become a race to the bottom, where corporations are the only winners and the rest of society, in both the developed and developing worlds, is the loser.”
Around the turn of the millennium, the fear of such a race to the bottom started haunting the debate about economic globalization. As capital and corporations became freer to move across borders, many worried that they would move to places with the lowest wages, worst working conditions, and least environmental protection. People believed that governments would be tempted to loosen standards to attract more investments and increase its participation in global supply chains.
But since then, the opposite has happened. The overall direction is one toward better jobs, higher wages, safer workplaces, and less child labor, and it has happened the fastest in the countries that have opened the most and are most integrated in global supply chains."
https://www.cato.org/publications/globalization-race-bottom-or-top?utm_campaign=Defending%20Globalization&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=280469537&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--VQQbLXWnOG_tuGuPnYFjZB7B-9IhUS9r84Pory3VGpu_3IkzIqM6gqFieq3NTFvQ6Q2I_D-3R_qMrSqW02tqiWd7Nvw&utm_content=280469537&utm_source=hs_email
The basic claims here are an easily dis-proven lies. Real wages rose under Trump. See Fred Series “Employed full time: Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over (LES1252881600Q)”. Of course, unemployment was low and declining. See Fred Series “Unemployment Rate (UNRATE)”. Of course, the (pre-Biden) inflation rate was also low. See Fred Series “Trimmed Mean PCE Inflation Rate (PCETRIM12M159SFRBDAL)”.
I suppose that Friedman and Krugman (who both won the Nobel Prize in economics) would agree on everything
The title of this article should read "The Economic Cost of Populism." To broaden the point, all elites strive to maintain their power. This is the well-argued thesis of "Why Nations Fail," by economists Acemoglu and Robinson.
Emphasizing MAGA shifts attention from the populist policies of the left, from which we are currently suffering the inflationary consequences, and from the more general point that of all elites strive to rig the political and economic system so as to retail power.
Liberal societies have larger GDP per head at PPP but how then to explain the rise of autocratic regimes and illiberal governments? Is this just a broader reflection of the undermining of core liberal values and institutions?
Liberalism leads to men pretending to be women so that they can cheat at sports. I have a standard comment about this.
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”