4 ms·
I tend to think of it as: we go into a recession but not a depression because automatic + manual safety checks were deployed. It's actually hugely troubling ho
by SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
I tend to think of it as: we go into a recession but not a depression because automatic + manual safety checks were deployed.
It's actually hugely troubling how much has been cut from government safety nets, because it seems liable to send the next recession into a depression and completely wipe out the very base who voted for those laws -- the poor South and the industrialized Midwest. I don't think rural America will survive the next depression with the social safety nets gutted: they've literally cut their own parachute lines, so they're going to crash not just fall.
But hey -- they saved a few years on taxes, right? Oh... wait... that was billionaires. Nevermind.
- mcguire 9y agoBut they won't go away when they (we?) crash. And they will likely want to double down on those voting patterns.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoThose regions are already evaporating, on the brink of collapse because of their policies: Their kids leave then don't come back and slowly, family by family, whole groups are forced to abandon the region; they're net emigration regions, especially when you count rural versus urban (eg, the pattern becomes clear when you look at Georgia minus Atlanta). Their migrated children tend to be more liberal, as urban populations are in general. Starvation is a wonderful motivator to change social order, and help mix society. Now, I'm not even arguing this is a good thing, but I'm pretty powerless to do much when I consistently vote to help those regions develop new industry and they consistently vote to overrule that. So, I hope they enjoy what they voted for: they won the debate, now they can have their prize.