Working versus voting for a living

This is from the NYT and is for a change exactly right: Biden Is the Big Spender America Wants with the sub-heading even more exactly right: “His economic plans are overwhelmingly popular”. The issue is whether people should work for a living or vote for a living. This is spelt out right in the article:

Bread-and-butter issues still move voters. Low unemployment helped Republicans do better in the 2020 elections than most analysts expected; the promise of relief checks helped Democrats win the Georgia runoffs, and with them control of the Senate. Which is, by the way, one reason it would be foolish to scale back relief spending because some economists think it’s excessive.

There are those who produce and those who consume. Modern economic theory says that it is the consumers who make the economy turn over. The buyers, of course, contribute absolutely nothing at all, unless they are also producers as well. Why that isn’t 100% obvious is beyond me, as I discuss in my latest book.

This entry was posted in Classical Economics, Economics on the left. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Working versus voting for a living

  1. Bruce says:

    In the old terminology:

    “Lifters vs. Leaners”.

  2. thefrollickingmole says:

    There was an excellent article which Im trying to track down which put forward the idea that cities main “business’ was to become political fiefdoms allowing pollies to demand more resources based not on what the place produced, but on demographics alone.

    If i can find it Ill repost it.

  3. Roger says:

    US government spending will just suck investment out of the private sector.

    In two years they’ll be wondering why unemployment is high and economic growth stagnant.

    Then the cry will go up, “Stimulus!”

    Repeat until you run out of OPM.

  4. Kneel says:

    “Which is, by the way, one reason …”

    Another is, of course the Magic Money Tree, aka Modern Monetary Theory, which says that if you are a Gov in debt just “print, baby, print!” If the US escapes hyper inflation, MMT may be true. Big IF though – inflation is already kicking in, and with 60% of US dollars “created” in the last 12 months, much more is on the way. Hey, gotta do something to keep the riff raff from having as much stuff as our betters, right? And what better way to drive the economy off a cliff.

  5. Scott Osmond says:

    Gazing in to my crystal ball, I see a book being published about the 20/21st century. An economic historian will write it. It’s title is, The fall of the west: What happens when grasshoppers outnumber ants.
    As a follow-on to a previous comment about how much money has been created over the last year I read this morning how another commodities super cycle is starting. Well, obviously! print money and people who have wealth will buy up physical assets if only to preserve value. Why hold an asset that the criminal clowns in the central bank will inflate in to worthlessness? Sadly most of the regular population will have to suck up the fact that their purchasing power is just being eroded. Then suddenly for no reason at all people will embrace one or more of the radical ideologies of the left or right. It’s as if no one in government, the banking sector or reserve banks know history even as recent as Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
    “This time it was going to be different” they will wail as they are lined up against the wall or mount the gallows.

  6. herodotus says:

    Supply side rules.
    Just get the media onside and it’s game set and match.
    Until then, back to the tennis.

  7. Tel says:

    Regis Resources Limited
    ASX: RRL

    Buy the dip? Always someone who wants gold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.