I’m trying to understand some logic. Maybe I just don’t get it. I mean, I’m weak on economics… however, I think it’s a lot to do with modern economics simply not being logical. There are assumptions that just don’t fit together.
For instance, the concept of state intervention is bad and horrible if the government imposes protective tarriffs on an industry or regulates or trust busts. The economy should be allowed to succeed or fail on it’s own merits. If it can’t afford to compete… it dies.
However, apply that same logic to employment, and it’s just not true. Employees in one country should be competing with employees in another country. If the business can’t afford to stay in business and compete with an American workforce, then the government should intervene and supply them with h1b visas and a flow of immigration (and here, my donation to the chamber of commerce can grease the skids for law enforcement looking the other way on illegals).
Another one that doesn’t work for me is the GDP as a sign of economic / governing health. For GDP to be up, you need to have high consumerism. Economic warfare (used to be a thing) is where you expand consumption of your GDP into other countries, weakening their own industries. Somewhere along the line, high GDP became conflated with local consumerism. This could be why the cheaper the better is the new mantra, making China the prime source for cheap trade – but I can’t understand why our economic policy doesn’t recognize high consumption of another country’s goods as a negative on GDP. The formula literally has imports as a negative. The other thing showing consumerism as the ultimate check on economic health is the concept of the government “stimulus”. I’m sorry, but stimulating consumerism, where a great many cheap goods come from a foreign country, is not going to raise your GDP. Retail does not increase GDP.
Consumerism is also a negative in societal and cultural health. Usually high consumers are really quite poor. The more wealthy people spend loads of money at once on very few items that become family heirlooms – like jewels, high quality furniture, antiques and antiquities, large homes that can be passed down. Having to spend smaller amounts of money on consumables with rapid turnover creates a maddening cycle where you can’t save for something better that lasts longer, but you still need to replace the item.
So in a consumer society, the target is having lots of lower-middle income people stuck in a rapid consumable turnover. This keeps GDP high as we are making more product.
However, what happens if fewer jobs are available to them? Well, that’s why the government stimulates the economy with welfare. Now, they have disposable income to keep making purchases.
Is that actually healthy?
In the economic discussions I have seen, especially on the mainstream right, there seems to be an antipathy towards creating an economic environment that creates more jobs and higher wages in our country that employs people in our country. To them, it requires government interference. At the same time, they want welfare to be abolished. How do you bridge that? You can not have it both ways and remain a human being, much less support that GDP (i.e you economic health). I bet you anything the chamber of commerce knows this… and they decided welfare should stay to keep consumption up. Why else do elected Republicans avoid entitlements?