The first problem is that voters actually believe that Presidents can run "the economy." Presidents take credit (falsely) for good economic conditions so it is logical they should also be responsible for bad economic outcomes. BUT THIS IS JUST A LIE and the media insists on repeating the lie because to really communicate the reality of how a market economy works here or in China is just too hard. It is an economic SUPERSTITION. It is the classical error of confusing correlation and causation.
When a President crows about the economy under their watch they NEVER ask the President or his reps to explain exactly which of his policies are responsible for that improvement. Likewise when blamed for bad economies critics never seem to be able to pinpoint exactly what the President did or failed to do.
The economy is global. The economy is like a climate system not the weather. Just as a climate system can produce hurricanes markets create their own disasters in order to adjust themselves.
Economies grow and retract, boom and bust, recede and recover. Sometimes markets balloon and then spectacularly collapse. The more complex the economy and its market the more difficult it is to predict the consequences of any particular policy pursued by the state.
The question where economics intersects with politics is not who caused the economic situation at any particular moment but which political party is best able to respond to the crises which will inevitably come. Who and how will they take advantage of periods of growth prosperity and who and how will they prepare for times of retraction and privation?
Joseph advised the Pharaoh that there would be seven years of good harvests followed by 7 years of famine. Instead of just gluttonous gorging during the good years Joseph advised storing up excess grain during the good years that would tide them over during the famine.
Adam Smith believed that political economy should fight false beliefs and superstition about economic policy. He also thought that political economy should propose regulatory frameworks that would help protect society and encourage socially beneficial behaviors. However, he also believed that competition and regulations could be undermined, which could lead to monopolies that are profitable for the monopolists (oligarchs) but harmful to others.
*Homo economicus* died some time ago. RIP. And yet the Libertarians at Cato continue to believe in and push "individual liberty", somehow believing, in spite of much evidence to the contrary, that humans are by default ruled by their frontal lobe. In fact it takes effort to make your rational brain work and very many of us (about 50% per the latest election results) don't bother to fire that sucker up. If the re-election of the Orange Felon thRump doesn't convince you that your conception of "individual liberty" may not be the best of all possible worlds, I'm not sure what will! What is one of MAGA's mantras? "Freedom" "Free to choose what I want; jobs, cake and a fork to eat it with. And don't forget the beer! Don't wanna' think about it, just wanna' have it. If thRump says he can give me that, he's telling me what I want to hear and I believe him. My heart says he's right!" Libertarianism on steroids. Wake up, guys!!
Yeah, but Robert Lay is uniquely qualified to judge his fellow citizens as unfit to consider themselves thinking beings, or to run their own lives. After all, he's an "expert" at being human!
Vague terms like 'Democracy" and "Liberalism" and "Ill-liberalism" need to be replaced by Classical Liberalism. Kamala losing is a huge victory for the free market, classical liberal movement. The job now is to eliminate the Deep State and teach Democrats, in particular, about real free markets. Trump needs pushing too in different directions, but the door is now open to do just that.
"I always remind people that if you are the kind of person who is reading this conversation or who is on social media talking about politics, you are particularly weird in your degree of knowledge and engagement. People this involved wildly overestimate how much the typical voter knows and how much they pay attention."
followed by
"This is where your low information thesis comes in: I do think there’s a lot of people, a lot of voters, who have not grasped the economics in detail." Like maybe 10%? Of course this is NOT limited to the Rs. The Ds don't know either.
SO
why did the Dems get a "raw deal"?
Because in addition to "low information" and "not paying attention", people vote their heart, NOT THEIR BRAIN. The sooner the *vast* majority of liberals wake up to this the better their chances of actually getting something done. Y'all keep trying to analyze it with your brain. That feels good but it doesn't really answer the question or get you in a place where you might be able to solve some problems.
Americans are NOT "going to take government institutions seriously" until they feel (in their hearts and not their brains) like 'the government' is listening to them rather than making work and chewing up their hard-earned tax dollars with (what feels like) no tangible benefit to the middle of the country. tRump listened to them, heard their pain, and they lapped it up.
Yes, they lapped it up even though it was all phony.
I agree with a lot of what you said here BUT I think it really comes down to the fact that a lot of people (for whatever reason) just liked Trump better than Harris. Just as with Obama in 2012 they just like him better than Mitt Romney. It isn't so much a brain or heart thing just an instinctual gut level enjoyment of the person without any cloud of policies or arguments. That is why he was able to perform for so many years on his "Apprentice" shows with fairly decent ratings. That is why "You're Fired!" has become a cultural touchstone. Basically it is just like a Jr. High popularity contest.
As we've been picking each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs have been laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile -- playing both ends against the middle -- those same oligarchs (or another faction of them) have stoked the backlash. As usual, we've just elected the best government money can buy.
In a truly fair 2024 election, the winner would have been "None of the above."
You're talking about the heart. About emotion vs. reason. Heart = like = feels good = no brain involved. It's making a vitally important decision without using 3 or more of the frontal cortex neurons you were born with. All heart, no head; all emotion, no thought.
Your allegiance to what you perceive a "the frontal cortex" is itself a predilection or predisposition (i.e., an emotional response). You don't know all of the factors impinging on another person's (or your own) existential sensibilities. Epistemology is not a science.
And your name-calling is no less emotional than the pot-shots lobbed by Donald Dump.
I get what you are saying but I don't think it even gets as deep as emotions. Football rouses deep emotional commitment and connection. Trump titillates and amuses and entertains. This kind of liking isn't deep. It isn't even superficial. Who wins on "Dancing with the Stars" and "America's got Talent" has more emotional connection that Trump.
Interesting to think that people vote on something that "...isn't even superficial." That's ugly indeed.
Based on reports I've read of thRump rallies (David French and elsewhere) I believe the connection is deeper than you think. "Finally somebody hears me and understands my distress." Maybe not for some, but for too many. Is 2 too many? Probably.
The first problem is that voters actually believe that Presidents can run "the economy." Presidents take credit (falsely) for good economic conditions so it is logical they should also be responsible for bad economic outcomes. BUT THIS IS JUST A LIE and the media insists on repeating the lie because to really communicate the reality of how a market economy works here or in China is just too hard. It is an economic SUPERSTITION. It is the classical error of confusing correlation and causation.
When a President crows about the economy under their watch they NEVER ask the President or his reps to explain exactly which of his policies are responsible for that improvement. Likewise when blamed for bad economies critics never seem to be able to pinpoint exactly what the President did or failed to do.
The economy is global. The economy is like a climate system not the weather. Just as a climate system can produce hurricanes markets create their own disasters in order to adjust themselves.
Economies grow and retract, boom and bust, recede and recover. Sometimes markets balloon and then spectacularly collapse. The more complex the economy and its market the more difficult it is to predict the consequences of any particular policy pursued by the state.
The question where economics intersects with politics is not who caused the economic situation at any particular moment but which political party is best able to respond to the crises which will inevitably come. Who and how will they take advantage of periods of growth prosperity and who and how will they prepare for times of retraction and privation?
Joseph advised the Pharaoh that there would be seven years of good harvests followed by 7 years of famine. Instead of just gluttonous gorging during the good years Joseph advised storing up excess grain during the good years that would tide them over during the famine.
Adam Smith believed that political economy should fight false beliefs and superstition about economic policy. He also thought that political economy should propose regulatory frameworks that would help protect society and encourage socially beneficial behaviors. However, he also believed that competition and regulations could be undermined, which could lead to monopolies that are profitable for the monopolists (oligarchs) but harmful to others.
The Trump administration will not change that.
And...
I hate to be catty, but...
*Homo economicus* died some time ago. RIP. And yet the Libertarians at Cato continue to believe in and push "individual liberty", somehow believing, in spite of much evidence to the contrary, that humans are by default ruled by their frontal lobe. In fact it takes effort to make your rational brain work and very many of us (about 50% per the latest election results) don't bother to fire that sucker up. If the re-election of the Orange Felon thRump doesn't convince you that your conception of "individual liberty" may not be the best of all possible worlds, I'm not sure what will! What is one of MAGA's mantras? "Freedom" "Free to choose what I want; jobs, cake and a fork to eat it with. And don't forget the beer! Don't wanna' think about it, just wanna' have it. If thRump says he can give me that, he's telling me what I want to hear and I believe him. My heart says he's right!" Libertarianism on steroids. Wake up, guys!!
Yeah, but Robert Lay is uniquely qualified to judge his fellow citizens as unfit to consider themselves thinking beings, or to run their own lives. After all, he's an "expert" at being human!
Yes, Clueless.
Vague terms like 'Democracy" and "Liberalism" and "Ill-liberalism" need to be replaced by Classical Liberalism. Kamala losing is a huge victory for the free market, classical liberal movement. The job now is to eliminate the Deep State and teach Democrats, in particular, about real free markets. Trump needs pushing too in different directions, but the door is now open to do just that.
Trump will be pushed in any direction that he sees as benefiting himself. Actual payments to him or his crime family will be most persuasive.
Clueless.
"I always remind people that if you are the kind of person who is reading this conversation or who is on social media talking about politics, you are particularly weird in your degree of knowledge and engagement. People this involved wildly overestimate how much the typical voter knows and how much they pay attention."
followed by
"This is where your low information thesis comes in: I do think there’s a lot of people, a lot of voters, who have not grasped the economics in detail." Like maybe 10%? Of course this is NOT limited to the Rs. The Ds don't know either.
SO
why did the Dems get a "raw deal"?
Because in addition to "low information" and "not paying attention", people vote their heart, NOT THEIR BRAIN. The sooner the *vast* majority of liberals wake up to this the better their chances of actually getting something done. Y'all keep trying to analyze it with your brain. That feels good but it doesn't really answer the question or get you in a place where you might be able to solve some problems.
Americans are NOT "going to take government institutions seriously" until they feel (in their hearts and not their brains) like 'the government' is listening to them rather than making work and chewing up their hard-earned tax dollars with (what feels like) no tangible benefit to the middle of the country. tRump listened to them, heard their pain, and they lapped it up.
Yes, they lapped it up even though it was all phony.
I agree with a lot of what you said here BUT I think it really comes down to the fact that a lot of people (for whatever reason) just liked Trump better than Harris. Just as with Obama in 2012 they just like him better than Mitt Romney. It isn't so much a brain or heart thing just an instinctual gut level enjoyment of the person without any cloud of policies or arguments. That is why he was able to perform for so many years on his "Apprentice" shows with fairly decent ratings. That is why "You're Fired!" has become a cultural touchstone. Basically it is just like a Jr. High popularity contest.
They didn't "lap it up."
As we've been picking each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs have been laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile -- playing both ends against the middle -- those same oligarchs (or another faction of them) have stoked the backlash. As usual, we've just elected the best government money can buy.
In a truly fair 2024 election, the winner would have been "None of the above."
You're talking about the heart. About emotion vs. reason. Heart = like = feels good = no brain involved. It's making a vitally important decision without using 3 or more of the frontal cortex neurons you were born with. All heart, no head; all emotion, no thought.
Your allegiance to what you perceive a "the frontal cortex" is itself a predilection or predisposition (i.e., an emotional response). You don't know all of the factors impinging on another person's (or your own) existential sensibilities. Epistemology is not a science.
And your name-calling is no less emotional than the pot-shots lobbed by Donald Dump.
I get what you are saying but I don't think it even gets as deep as emotions. Football rouses deep emotional commitment and connection. Trump titillates and amuses and entertains. This kind of liking isn't deep. It isn't even superficial. Who wins on "Dancing with the Stars" and "America's got Talent" has more emotional connection that Trump.
Interesting to think that people vote on something that "...isn't even superficial." That's ugly indeed.
Based on reports I've read of thRump rallies (David French and elsewhere) I believe the connection is deeper than you think. "Finally somebody hears me and understands my distress." Maybe not for some, but for too many. Is 2 too many? Probably.
It is ugly. Bread and circuses is all they want.