3 ms·

I wonder if such perseverance is possible today in what seems like a time of more intense politics, and with the presence of social media potentially making eve

I wonder if such perseverance is possible today in what seems like a time of more intense politics, and with the presence of social media potentially making everyone see the bad side of things only. It was a moment from the Fed (and government in general) where they favored long term prosperity at the expense of near term possible recession. I think we need a little more of that, not necessarily in what central banks do, but governments in general.

mhuffman 2y ago
I don't think so, and I believe that it is related to the reasons you state, but a little more cynical. Corporate America has a very, very strong grip on politics now. For an eye-opening example, go fine graphs of the number of laws in the US that have been passed correlated to whether it had wide national voter support vs wide corporate support. It is even stronger than the 70s in my opinion. No matter who is in office, I believe they would put unbearable political/financial pressure on them to use their power to make the "bleeding" stop. Just look at right now. We are still at one of the lowest Fed rates we ever had, but since it is not 0%, you have corporate lobbyists and financial news outlets speaking as if our country can not bear these "out of control" rates.
gumby 2y ago
I was in the USA in high school when Carter appointed Volker, knowing that it would likely cost him reelection. The things you mention were worse then, not better: > I wonder if such perseverance is possible today in what seems like a time of more intense politics, and with the presence of social media potentially making everyone see the bad side of things only. People are more politically engaged today than back then. The US was just quieting down from a period of mass demonstrations, political assassinations and kidnapping, and the like. Conspiracy theories were rife, spread by local newspapers and such. It was pretty fucked up. The decade before the president had had to made a push just to make sure everybody had indoor plumbing! > It was a moment from the Fed (and government in general) where they favored long term prosperity at the expense of near term possible recession. To highly simplify, the problem was that indeed the government (LBJ and Nixon both) had borrowed heavily to both invest long term (infrastructure) and short term (war) which had worked well from the 40s to mid 60s (due to demographics and preconditions) but overshot as the age profile of the population changed. So it wasn’t that they were jerks (well, both LBJ and Nixon were), they just didn’t recognize that life had changed. At least that jerk LBJ was legitimately trying to do good. But people weren’t sure what to do, and were afraid of hard choices (as we all are). Carter broke the back of inflation by deregulating and hiring Volker. Nobody enjoyed going through that. Then Reagan showed up, got the benefit, and went back to “don’t worry, be happy” which has led to the current mess. But it’s much much better now in many ways. People have forgotten how much hard work that was and yes, things are politically riskier now, but on the other fronts better, if still far from perfect.

mhuffman 2y ago

I don't think so, and I believe that it is related to the reasons you state, but a little more cynical. Corporate America has a very, very strong grip on politics now. For an eye-opening example, go fine graphs of the number of laws in the US that have been passed correlated to whether it had wide national voter support vs wide corporate support. It is even stronger than the 70s in my opinion. No matter who is in office, I believe they would put unbearable political/financial pressure on them to use their power to make the "bleeding" stop. Just look at right now. We are still at one of the lowest Fed rates we ever had, but since it is not 0%, you have corporate lobbyists and financial news outlets speaking as if our country can not bear these "out of control" rates.

gumby 2y ago

I was in the USA in high school when Carter appointed Volker, knowing that it would likely cost him reelection. The things you mention were worse then, not better: > I wonder if such perseverance is possible today in what seems like a time of more intense politics, and with the presence of social media potentially making everyone see the bad side of things only. People are more politically engaged today than back then. The US was just quieting down from a period of mass demonstrations, political assassinations and kidnapping, and the like. Conspiracy theories were rife, spread by local newspapers and such. It was pretty fucked up. The decade before the president had had to made a push just to make sure everybody had indoor plumbing! > It was a moment from the Fed (and government in general) where they favored long term prosperity at the expense of near term possible recession. To highly simplify, the problem was that indeed the government (LBJ and Nixon both) had borrowed heavily to both invest long term (infrastructure) and short term (war) which had worked well from the 40s to mid 60s (due to demographics and preconditions) but overshot as the age profile of the population changed. So it wasn’t that they were jerks (well, both LBJ and Nixon were), they just didn’t recognize that life had changed. At least that jerk LBJ was legitimately trying to do good. But people weren’t sure what to do, and were afraid of hard choices (as we all are). Carter broke the back of inflation by deregulating and hiring Volker. Nobody enjoyed going through that. Then Reagan showed up, got the benefit, and went back to “don’t worry, be happy” which has led to the current mess. But it’s much much better now in many ways. People have forgotten how much hard work that was and yes, things are politically riskier now, but on the other fronts better, if still far from perfect.