all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 1 week ago (14 children)

The problem Roosevelt was facing was unemployment. Our problem is inflation and the debt.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 week ago* (12 children)

    Yeah…

    The solution is what precisely no one in politics wants to do: increased taxes and cut spending. Widespread progressive reform, while being frugal and gutting benefits.

    I’m convinced it’s literally impossible to deal with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    We have pretty strong real world evidence that austerity contracts the economy, makes things worse. Government spending brings more money into circulation, stimulates the economy.

    Austerity measures may seem obvious, but we’d be far better off rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy of the last several decades, and provide better/more services to those who need it.

    We have the world’s first trillionaire, yet he pays a lower tax rate than most of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    That’s if the budget has been under control previously.

    I think we have crossed the threshold where pain is unavoidable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    That’s actually the logic I use- if we hadn’t had those tax cuts we’d still have a huge debt but not “pain is unavoidable”. We could have been running a relatively flat deficit that you could argue we’d eventually grow out of. You can’t argue that anymore but perhaps restoring those taxes would bring us back to more sane territory

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

    Or we could tax the rich and expand services to the poor and needy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (5 children)

    I mean, we could tax a worryingly large percentage of GDP, plus make significant cuts to the military, and existing services + the interest we pay on debt would still keep us in the red.

    …Hence, that’s a nice sentiment, and social services can certainly be reworked.

    But we are in a debt spiral. The way out is a way no one on the political spectrum will like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    The way out is to make corporations and the most wealthy of us pay their share of taxes and not rob the country blind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    U.S taxes are ~17% of GDP, while spending is 23%. That's already significant.

    Lets increase corporate taxes manyfold so its the primary source of revenue, and gut defense spending to 1/3 its size, while cutting income tax on the poor. Lets not touch medicare or anything at all, even though its arguably insufficient. Let's pretend that's somehow politically viable and wouldn't topple the US government from its side effects:

    https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/newsletter/20261016-US-Budget-Deficit-Rises-Third-Highest-History

    chart showing expenses and revenue of us govt

    ...We would still barely break even.

    And that's before the AI bubble pops, and kills tax revenue, and increases that $1 trillion in interest costs dramatically through the government's interest rates rising.

    There's basically no way around this without touching something painful, like social security. "Tax the corporations" alone will not be enough; we are past that point, unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    I appreciate the work that you have put into researching this.

    I’m still not convinced that the process doesn't start at the top and work its way down as opposed to the old tried and true American way of cutting “entitlements” (fucking hate that word) first. I think that it would make much more sense to start by making those who have used all kinds of tax loopholes and defied regulation to shift the burden onto the tax payers (coal plants, Walmart tesla etc.) and essentially have tax payers help prop up their businesses and the government be their piggy banks (defense contractors and Haliburton etc.) than to go back to what we have been doing for so long and cutting programs that actually help improve the way of life gdp and don’t look like real money on paper like snap Medicaid and Medicare.

    That’s FDR kind of stuff. And it’s stuff that helps get us back into the black policy and happiness wise which is a metric that no one wants to be added to how to factor the gdp because it would send America to dead last in the world. This place is a prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    It’s a good idea. Kill the tax loopholes.

    But, separately, I am asserting that the theoretical amount of money we gain is not the right order of magnitude. What you propose by itself would yield revenue, but barely enough to make a dent.

    And if I’m wrong, if it’s somehow an extremely large amount of money that’s gained, we run into a more fundamental issue: if we are going to tax such huge percentage of GDP (let’s say over 30%, well above the EU average) getting setup to spend it correctly is very tricky. Historically, such a sharp rise would be a sign of civilizational collapse, especially for a large heterogenous “empire” like the United States (as opposed to somewhere like Denmark, a relatively compact state that developed a high-tax economy gradually).

    The idea is good. But it’s just not enough by itself, even theoretically, once borrowing costs explode, which is all-but-certain to happen now. I simply do not agree that tax reform alone is going to fix this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Economics aside, the only thing I’ve learned about this country that is consistent, is it’s ability to sustain its fear and hatred in order to bamboozle the public. It’s been my entire life here since 9/11. And it’s been a huge hate grift ever since with disastrous side effects punctuated by democrats rebuilding the economy everytime a republican president slams it into the ground. It’s he idea that the market can sustain externalzing costs like happiness and satisfaction, health etc. is like trying to model climate change. We dont have all the information to really see the real time variables we need to account for.

    I just had a conversation with a Finnish person and they were like, “wages have been stagnating here for forever and there isnt unrest like in America” (loose on the quotations on that,) and it’s like well you have so many guarantees that we don’t have.

    I guess I just kind of see it as a returns problem that we keep trying to solve with the gdp . And I feel like Dem. Administrations have a tendency to approach my point with their marked investments in social safety nets and programs that benefit the public over the mega wealthy (while also benefiting the mega wealthy but to a lesser degree, because money and being monied is ab affiliation all of its own accord and separate from the common American language experience.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    Probably not - but at least it might get some useful stuff done.

    Bank regulation and directed credit is what you really need.
    Even if someone tried pump priming, govt doesn’t actually have control of currency anymore, so any such efforts would be "crowded out" by rampant unrestrained bank (+ interlinked FI) credit creation.

    The banks deserve to be in the situation they were in in the '30s, but they aren't due to a generation or two that has let them do what they want and bailing them out after they fail us multiple times. If anything their power has increased. Moronic governments pushing pro-cyclical policies and pumping bubbles is fucking insanity. Well probably just corruption - but democracy seems very weak at controlling it these days.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    You could get a lot of rather inexpensive work done if you just put all ICE and DOGE criminals in chain gangs.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    We're much more in need of anti-trust enforcement. Productivity is much higher now than at any point in history, but all of the wealth it creates is stolen and hoarded by a very small number of greedy people.

    Freeing that up and putting it in the hands of the people would give all of us a high standard of living. Putting a fraction of it into public funding to mitigate the effects of climate change would also support this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    This we’ve done a full 180 back to the robber baron era of the 19 hundreds but supercharged for the modern age. America is like history wtf is that because one day I will also be rich and wish to run over peaons in the street, or in the case of musk and Trump, sexually assault and starve children with no consequences.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago*

    A big reason for the success of WPA was hordes of cheap unskilled or less skilled labor.

    But now everything is automated or has higher requirements. You can no longer hire 1,000 random people to build a road, a bridge or a dam, and the results would be far below what skilled people with the right tools can do.

    So what types of jobs would this organization do and how well would they be able to match skills with jobs?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    That's basically what the 22 infrastructure bill was

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    No, I believe Americans are America's problem. Just look at what leadership Americans prefer.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Translation: I know nothing about Americans or the American electoral system and have decided to blame the victims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Then look at it from outside of America of you don't understand the inner working.

    If you're an ally of America or make a deal with America, every 4 years they may elect a Trump

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Those are the wonders of gerrymandering and people who don't vote (by choice or lack of option), by and large. Hard to say this is the preferred leadership when "did not vote" would win every election if it were a candidate.

    But the first sentence you wrote is mostly still right in any case.

  • source
  • parent