15 ms·
krl02 made the point that all these things are political processes. You brought up the example of past bipartisan investments as a counterargument; my understan
by azernik 8y ago
krl02 made the point that all these things are political processes. You brought up the example of past bipartisan investments as a counterargument; my understanding of your point was "we've had bipartisan consensus on investments before, therefore there wasn't a political process going on around that". I was pointing out that this also is a political process, and that krl02's model of economic decision-making as a political process still stands.
Were you trying to make some other point instead?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ggm 8y agoAll these things are political processes, but one is a trend which has swept the world. Oppositional politics has swept the world, and is impeding capital investment in public works, because it reduces to a high-tax/low-tax argument and favours low-tax reductionism, over state capital works. I was trying to make the point that if (like me) you want capital works, and national utility project investment, you don't want oppositional politics, you want the other model. I am not in denial that there is another, or other models. We had more overt bipartisan politics over a number of important things like housing, defence policy, capital works. We have gone to a more oppositional model even though this means less public utility outcomes happen.