The Four Academic Parties Of The Economic Apocalypse The 1) Keynesian Spenders, 2) Chicago Monetarists, 3) Classical Liberal Industrial Policy Advocates and 4) Austrian Human Capital Advocates, will not put aside ideological differences and work together to propose a suite of solutions that will both stimulate the economy, and provide each ‘economic political party’, and each ‘governmental political party’ and their respective constituencies, with compensation for the involuntary transfers that will occur, and the negative externalities that will be brought about, if we borrow and spend.Blame Krugman And The Left I blame this set off affairs on on Krugman in particular, but the entire mainstream movement in general, whose ‘party’ is currently in power. And who, like all parties in power, seek to push their agenda independently of compromise rather than the agenda of the collective through artful compromise. Unfortunately, the people in government do not have a sufficient grasp of the different schools to think of them as the adjuncts to political parties that they are. When Obama called a meeting of ‘top economists’, there oval office contained only left wing economists – none of them white or christian either. Thereby demonstrating his preference, and in doing so guaranteeing that a broad based solution was impossible. Exchanges Build Permission To Spend It would be entirely possible for the left to ’spend’ in exchange for wiping out the DOE, HUD and public education tenure. That would be a fair exchange. It would be entirely possible to ’spend’ in exchange for a new immigration policy. That would be a fair exchange. But all efforts at exchange have failed. Polarization continues. And you simply seek economic dictatorship, so that you can remove the means by which the population can rebel against the state. The Reincarnation Of The Devil Himself: The Cashless Economy I agree with the MMT crowd, and Yglasias, that the elimination of paper currency will allow forcible redistribution across the entire economy by way of monetary policy alone, which will allow the Left/Statist/Keynesian alliance to overwhelm the Monetarist, Industrial and Human Capital parties, and each of their supporters, in the domesticl economic legislature of intellectual opinion. The Resistance Movement The other Political/Economic party coalitions object to spending, because they object to further empowering the left/state/keynesian party. This is the opportunity that the moderate and right side coalitions are using to punish the state for over reaching. The conservative strategy is to starve the beast and bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt them, and entirely destroy their culture. (Albiet, it’s probably too late now.) It appears to most of us, who focus on productivity instead of consumption, that both increases in spending, and a cashless society, simply remove the constraints on destruction of productivity, and further encourages the creation of catastrophic bubbles that will not be able to be ‘fixed’ by market corrections, but instead, will be solved only by revolution, economic irrelevance and poverty, or military conquest. Yes People Prefer Depression To Revolution, Civil War, Economic Impoverishment, and Conquest. So yes, people clearly prefer this ‘state of affairs’ to those where the state is further empowered to expose them to risk. And in that sense, it is a rational choice, a fair trade, and it is currently being purchased at a discount. Economics is inseparable from politics. Because economics is a subset of politics. And politics prevail. Politics prevails because the material economy lives at the service of the status economy. It always has and it always will.
We have plenty of data on why people vote. In very, very, general terms:
1 – They agree with the conservative economic program.
2 – They agree with the conservative military program.
3 – They agree with the liberals sympathy to the plight of minorities and the vulnerable, but not to the point of creating a welfare state.
4 – They see the (urban) liberal assault on traditional culture as ‘haughty’ and insulting.
So, when they add all this up, they end up on the side of the conservatives.
Liberals are more subject to the false consensus bias than are conservatives, and tend to think everyone agrees with them. Conservatives are more subject to threats that will destabilize society than liberals, and have a more pessimistic view of human nature. The public agrees with that perception of human nature. Especially on crime, the economy, welfare and the military. So that’s where the ‘average’ conservative comes from if there is one.
COMPOSITION OF THE ELECTORATE
The majority (for now) of the country remains ‘leaning conservative’ by a large margin. (Liberals are less that 20% of the electorate). The USA is a very conservative country by international standards. It maintains it’s germanic protestant roots. Religious belief is higher. We have more violent crime -albiet it is largely race related — but less petty crime that other countries.
PARTIES SERVE COALITIONS NOT ‘AVERAGES’
Both parties are built out of coalitions. Sort of like hands of playing cards. And parties use them like playing cards. Thats how they stay in power. To understand your question, requires really looking at that set of coalitions. There are really no ‘average’ people in the sense that you mean it. The level of scientific understanding that political marketers have of how people behave is disconcerting in its accuracy.
THE EXTREME ENDS AND THE IMPORTANT MIDDLE
Political speech is very extreme. The media represents extremes. Each side of the spectrum is fully committed to their party. There is a small group in the middle that is highly pragmatic, that is not committed either way, and who make up their minds who to vote for at the last minute. That group determines everything in every election. So, practically speaking, all the ‘talk’ we hear is really for the purpose of getting people’s attention so that the media can profit from advertising, and so that the ‘base’ of each party will provide monetary contributions to the candidates.
ADVERTISING BUYS THE ILLUSION OF CONSENSUS
The middle tends to make its decision on popular consensus as they understand it. that consensus is produced very often by advertising and media. So the heated conversations exist largely to provide enough money so that the media can be saturated sufficiently to create the impression that there is a consensus, so that the middle will go with the consensus.
ONCE IN POWER THE POLITICIANS FIND OUT HOW LITTLE POWER THEY HAVE.
The bureaucracy, the practical demands of being the worlds’ policemen, and the problem of so many different coalitions, the influence of lobbyists, as well as the need to obtain reelection money, render much of government a system of entertainment more than anything else.
I know it probably sounds absurd. But while oversimplified, that is a pretty accurate representation of what’s going on.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-ordinary-people-vote-conservative