8 ms·

Can't remember where I read this but essentially most Americans are single issue voters on the economy. They just pick their second most important issue when th

by goles 2y ago

Can't remember where I read this but essentially most Americans are single issue voters on the economy. They just pick their second most important issue when the economy is humming along nicely. The economy has been fine for many peoples working lives during ZIRP. But when people feel like their struggling to afford diapers and cereal most other issues become secondary.

qeternity 2y ago
ZIRP was the cause of that pain.
saynay 2y ago
This has been my thought as well. Inflation was high, so low-propensity voters against the current party show up while those for the current party don't. It will take some time to see what the actual voting shifts were, but the economy has always been an accurate predictor.
- lokar 2y ago
  The general consensus was to avoid high unemployment as that would anger voters. Now we know high inflation is much much worse in the minds of voters.
  - saynay 2y ago
    Probably true, honestly. High inflation impacts everyone, where high unemployment probably affects fewer people directly.
mlcrypto 2y ago
Under the Biden/Harris administration even software engineers were hurting and couldn't find work. Unprecedented
- romwell 2y ago
  >Under the Biden/Harris administration even software engineers were hurting and couldn't find work. Unprecedented Sure. And why do you think that might be? In other words, do you think policy changes have instantaneous effect on issues like unemployment, or perhaps they take some time?
  - kukkamario 2y ago
    It is rather annoying that larger policy changes easily take 2-4 years to actually affect anything so current party always gets both blame and thanks for the changes made by the previous administration.
  - matwood 2y ago
    Yeah. Unless a POTUS is in for 8 years they almost never get to experience the full results of their economic policies. Biden inherited an inflation time bomb which has been handled. I expect Trump will claim he fixed inflation the first report that comes out after the inauguration.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      A thousand times this. I don't know that Trump could have done a better job at economic sabotage when in office the first time. Printed trillions of dollars of undirected helicopter money when monetary velocity was low, which immediately went into asset inflation ("the stock market is great"). Then when things started moving again, it all started chasing goods and we got broad price inflation on top of acute shortages. The fact that the democrats just let the republicans hang Trump's economic destruction around their neck really shows how utterly inept they are at messaging. I shudder to think what inflation will be at in four years after a return to ZIRP corporate welfare and the next national emergency that's left to fester.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      "inflation time bomb". I never saw that term before. What was the primary cause of simultaneous inflation in all highly advanced economies, and how was Trump responsible for the US component?
romwell 2y ago
>But when people feel like their struggling to afford diapers and cereal most other issues become secondary. Not entirely unreasonable. Now, if only they had the brains to realize that the economy during the current term was shaped by the decisions made in the previous term. Cue Trump's 2nd term being propped up by everything Biden did to un-fuck Trump's 1st term.
- poes-law 2y ago
  Poe's law comes to mind for me here. But I guess this comment is sincere.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Democratic messaging really failed. The economy was a winnable issue for them. Trump's promises (20% broad tariff, mass deportation, make the Fed a political office, trade wars) would devastate the economy and cause significant inflation. Even Elon Musk admits that Trump's plans will tank the economy. https://x.com/whstancil/status/1851265385909092565 https://x.com/whstancil/status/1851265385909092565 Now right wing commentators are saying that Trump won't actually do what he promised. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/11/what-is-the-best-case-scenario-for-a-trump-presidency.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/11/wh...
- nirav72 2y ago
  Most of the stuff he promised he won't do. Simply because of the sheer complexity and resources involved. It's not in his nature to focus and work out complex issues. Imagine the logistics required to simply apprehend, process and deport 10-15 million people at scale. He'll probably do better at closing the border than any past president. That's for certain. But actually deporting all undocumented migrants already within the country. yeah, that's not happening. At best , its going to be performative on many things. Even with structural changes to the administrative state that the GOP's project 2025 seems to be promising - it's harder than it appears. Regarding tariffs - China is currently in an economy slump. Trump being transactional in nature , its certain the Chinese will be open to bilateral agreements. So I don't see tariffs lasting long.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    It's not in Trump's nature to do the work, but all he has to do is sign the bill. It's staffers that do the work. In 2016 the staffers were mostly Bush people, and the 2016 presidency was mostly a Bush repeat. In 2024 the staffers are going to be much different. If Trump gets a trifecta all bets are off -- we'll get policy set by whoever gets Trump's ear.
  - lenkite 2y ago
    He and Vance both said they would focus on criminal deportation first. Considering that most illegals breaking laws are just let loose free to commit crimes again by left-leaning states - those folks will now get to be kicked out like they should have been. Then, he will apply his rule of: no adding regulation, unless you first remove regulation. The one-in, two-out program to cut regulatory costs. Considering he definitely did this in his last administration and did save ~$100 billion, reasonably certain he will do this again.
tw04 2y ago
Then all those people are in for a heck of a rude awakening. I can tell you what’s going to happen to the cost of everyday goods with a 100% tariff placed on top, and the answer isn’t: they’re going down.
- nprateem 2y ago
  Populism only works because the average voter doesn't understand economics or politics. Or much of anything they're voting for really.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- frmersdog 2y ago
  And the Harris campaign's answer to this was...? Keep in mind that this is after the Biden admin/Congress gutted half of his proposed infrastructure reform. That half was already compromised compared to what progressives wanted, and they STILL couldn't pass it. Guess who stayed home yesterday? When you say, "Your only choice to save democracy is to vote for me," reasonable and rational people conclude that democracy is already done for and simply don't vote for anyone. And there were warnings that this would happen - like the primaries in Michigan - but establishment Democrats didn't listen (or didn't care). So, now, here we are. How's that for a rude awakening?
- kyleee 2y ago
  What “everyday goods” are getting a 100% tariff? Is there a list somewhere?
margorczynski 2y ago
The money from ZIRP mostly goes to the upper class as it props up asset values - stocks, land & housing, luxury goods, etc. In general easy lending benefits the richest the most - that's why you saw such a growing split between the wealth of the richest and poorest after throwing away the gold standard.
- frmersdog 2y ago
  >The money from ZIRP mostly goes to the upper class as it props up asset values - stocks, land & housing, luxury goods, etc. One that people tend to miss: compensation for high-income professionals. When that gets bid up, so does the price of everything they spend money on. Education/childcare, personal electronics, healthcare, transportation, food, etc. It's not just the wealthy and ultra-wealthy; when the upper middle class can pay and not feel pain, that's taken as a signal to jack up prices across the board.
  - margorczynski 2y ago
    I would most certainly categorize what is commonly known as the "upper middle class" as wealthy. Upper-middle usually has a sizable wealth, mainly in real estate, equities, etc. So it is not only the rich and ultra-rich (but of course them benefit from this the most if they don't do anything too stupid). Of course all of these terms and definitions are quite fuzzy so the whole argument hinges on some implicit agreement as to the specifics.
    - frmersdog 2y ago
      No argument from me. I make the distinction because I assume that I'm speaking to them when I'm posting on Hacker News. They generally don't see themselves as wealthy, even though they are.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> essentially most Americans are single issue voters on the economy. Isn't this true in all democracies? It is very hard to stay in power if the economy isn't doing well.
- Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
  In Portugal the same two parties have been consistentently fucking up the economy for the past 30 years with no end in sight. It's comically bad. They then announce pensions for majority groups like the elderly and get voted into power by the same groups they are financing.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    Woah, I had to look up the historical economic performance of Portugal. I found GDP growth figures from 1996. Man, it is rough: About 1.5% per year. Ref: https://tradingeconomics.com/portugal/gdp-growth-annual https://tradingeconomics.com/portugal/gdp-growth-annual That is so low for an upper-middle/lower-upper income country. (Most economists would not describe Portugal as high income in 1996.) I expected EU integration would have made their economy boom. You are right: I have not seen this pattern before. Normally, good democracies can "right the ship". Why does this persist in Portugal?
    - Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
      Hey, sorry I didn't see this comment earlier. I think there are a few historical reasons: - We are only 50 years out of a dictatorship - We were late to industrialism - Our main business sectors are bad (tourism, agriculture, textiles) And a few law/cultural reasons: - Lots of buroucracy and inefficiency + high taxes means making a business here is impossible (I've sold a company that I incorporated here so I'd know ahah) - Bad education and lack of incentives for companies to be here means younger talent leaves for greener pastures across EU and the US. We call it "brain drain". - Because all the young talented people keep leaving, the only remaining people are low-income workers or old people (we're a very old country). Old people keep voting the same corrupt parties into power so nothing ever changes. - There's a big "crab mentality" about people who are wealthy being evil. Extra: The party that played the biggest role in getting rid of our dictatorship was the communist party (that's literally their name, Partido Comunista Português), so in Portugal communism is good, and capitalism is bad. There's lots of talk about taxing the rich here, but the truth is that there are no rich. We only have ONE billionare. If were to tax 100% of our rich we wouldn't be able to run the government for more than a couple of weeks.

by goles 2y ago

qeternity 2y ago

ZIRP was the cause of that pain.

saynay 2y ago

This has been my thought as well. Inflation was high, so low-propensity voters against the current party show up while those for the current party don't. It will take some time to see what the actual voting shifts were, but the economy has always been an accurate predictor.

lokar 2y ago
The general consensus was to avoid high unemployment as that would anger voters. Now we know high inflation is much much worse in the minds of voters.
- saynay 2y ago
  Probably true, honestly. High inflation impacts everyone, where high unemployment probably affects fewer people directly.

mlcrypto 2y ago

Under the Biden/Harris administration even software engineers were hurting and couldn't find work. Unprecedented

romwell 2y ago
>Under the Biden/Harris administration even software engineers were hurting and couldn't find work. Unprecedented Sure. And why do you think that might be? In other words, do you think policy changes have instantaneous effect on issues like unemployment, or perhaps they take some time?
- kukkamario 2y ago
  It is rather annoying that larger policy changes easily take 2-4 years to actually affect anything so current party always gets both blame and thanks for the changes made by the previous administration.
- matwood 2y ago
  Yeah. Unless a POTUS is in for 8 years they almost never get to experience the full results of their economic policies. Biden inherited an inflation time bomb which has been handled. I expect Trump will claim he fixed inflation the first report that comes out after the inauguration.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    A thousand times this. I don't know that Trump could have done a better job at economic sabotage when in office the first time. Printed trillions of dollars of undirected helicopter money when monetary velocity was low, which immediately went into asset inflation ("the stock market is great"). Then when things started moving again, it all started chasing goods and we got broad price inflation on top of acute shortages. The fact that the democrats just let the republicans hang Trump's economic destruction around their neck really shows how utterly inept they are at messaging. I shudder to think what inflation will be at in four years after a return to ZIRP corporate welfare and the next national emergency that's left to fester.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    "inflation time bomb". I never saw that term before. What was the primary cause of simultaneous inflation in all highly advanced economies, and how was Trump responsible for the US component?

romwell 2y ago

>But when people feel like their struggling to afford diapers and cereal most other issues become secondary. Not entirely unreasonable. Now, if only they had the brains to realize that the economy during the current term was shaped by the decisions made in the previous term. Cue Trump's 2nd term being propped up by everything Biden did to un-fuck Trump's 1st term.

poes-law 2y ago
Poe's law comes to mind for me here. But I guess this comment is sincere.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Democratic messaging really failed. The economy was a winnable issue for them. Trump's promises (20% broad tariff, mass deportation, make the Fed a political office, trade wars) would devastate the economy and cause significant inflation. Even Elon Musk admits that Trump's plans will tank the economy. https://x.com/whstancil/status/1851265385909092565 https://x.com/whstancil/status/1851265385909092565 Now right wing commentators are saying that Trump won't actually do what he promised. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/11/what-is-the-best-case-scenario-for-a-trump-presidency.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/11/wh...

nirav72 2y ago
Most of the stuff he promised he won't do. Simply because of the sheer complexity and resources involved. It's not in his nature to focus and work out complex issues. Imagine the logistics required to simply apprehend, process and deport 10-15 million people at scale. He'll probably do better at closing the border than any past president. That's for certain. But actually deporting all undocumented migrants already within the country. yeah, that's not happening. At best , its going to be performative on many things. Even with structural changes to the administrative state that the GOP's project 2025 seems to be promising - it's harder than it appears. Regarding tariffs - China is currently in an economy slump. Trump being transactional in nature , its certain the Chinese will be open to bilateral agreements. So I don't see tariffs lasting long.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  It's not in Trump's nature to do the work, but all he has to do is sign the bill. It's staffers that do the work. In 2016 the staffers were mostly Bush people, and the 2016 presidency was mostly a Bush repeat. In 2024 the staffers are going to be much different. If Trump gets a trifecta all bets are off -- we'll get policy set by whoever gets Trump's ear.
- lenkite 2y ago
  He and Vance both said they would focus on criminal deportation first. Considering that most illegals breaking laws are just let loose free to commit crimes again by left-leaning states - those folks will now get to be kicked out like they should have been. Then, he will apply his rule of: no adding regulation, unless you first remove regulation. The one-in, two-out program to cut regulatory costs. Considering he definitely did this in his last administration and did save ~$100 billion, reasonably certain he will do this again.

tw04 2y ago

Then all those people are in for a heck of a rude awakening. I can tell you what’s going to happen to the cost of everyday goods with a 100% tariff placed on top, and the answer isn’t: they’re going down.

nprateem 2y ago
Populism only works because the average voter doesn't understand economics or politics. Or much of anything they're voting for really.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
frmersdog 2y ago
And the Harris campaign's answer to this was...? Keep in mind that this is after the Biden admin/Congress gutted half of his proposed infrastructure reform. That half was already compromised compared to what progressives wanted, and they STILL couldn't pass it. Guess who stayed home yesterday? When you say, "Your only choice to save democracy is to vote for me," reasonable and rational people conclude that democracy is already done for and simply don't vote for anyone. And there were warnings that this would happen - like the primaries in Michigan - but establishment Democrats didn't listen (or didn't care). So, now, here we are. How's that for a rude awakening?
kyleee 2y ago
What “everyday goods” are getting a 100% tariff? Is there a list somewhere?

margorczynski 2y ago

The money from ZIRP mostly goes to the upper class as it props up asset values - stocks, land & housing, luxury goods, etc. In general easy lending benefits the richest the most - that's why you saw such a growing split between the wealth of the richest and poorest after throwing away the gold standard.

frmersdog 2y ago
>The money from ZIRP mostly goes to the upper class as it props up asset values - stocks, land & housing, luxury goods, etc. One that people tend to miss: compensation for high-income professionals. When that gets bid up, so does the price of everything they spend money on. Education/childcare, personal electronics, healthcare, transportation, food, etc. It's not just the wealthy and ultra-wealthy; when the upper middle class can pay and not feel pain, that's taken as a signal to jack up prices across the board.
- margorczynski 2y ago
  I would most certainly categorize what is commonly known as the "upper middle class" as wealthy. Upper-middle usually has a sizable wealth, mainly in real estate, equities, etc. So it is not only the rich and ultra-rich (but of course them benefit from this the most if they don't do anything too stupid). Of course all of these terms and definitions are quite fuzzy so the whole argument hinges on some implicit agreement as to the specifics.
  - frmersdog 2y ago
    No argument from me. I make the distinction because I assume that I'm speaking to them when I'm posting on Hacker News. They generally don't see themselves as wealthy, even though they are.

throwaway2037 2y ago

> essentially most Americans are single issue voters on the economy. Isn't this true in all democracies? It is very hard to stay in power if the economy isn't doing well.

Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
In Portugal the same two parties have been consistentently fucking up the economy for the past 30 years with no end in sight. It's comically bad. They then announce pensions for majority groups like the elderly and get voted into power by the same groups they are financing.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Woah, I had to look up the historical economic performance of Portugal. I found GDP growth figures from 1996. Man, it is rough: About 1.5% per year. Ref: https://tradingeconomics.com/portugal/gdp-growth-annual https://tradingeconomics.com/portugal/gdp-growth-annual That is so low for an upper-middle/lower-upper income country. (Most economists would not describe Portugal as high income in 1996.) I expected EU integration would have made their economy boom. You are right: I have not seen this pattern before. Normally, good democracies can "right the ship". Why does this persist in Portugal?
  - Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
    Hey, sorry I didn't see this comment earlier. I think there are a few historical reasons: - We are only 50 years out of a dictatorship - We were late to industrialism - Our main business sectors are bad (tourism, agriculture, textiles) And a few law/cultural reasons: - Lots of buroucracy and inefficiency + high taxes means making a business here is impossible (I've sold a company that I incorporated here so I'd know ahah) - Bad education and lack of incentives for companies to be here means younger talent leaves for greener pastures across EU and the US. We call it "brain drain". - Because all the young talented people keep leaving, the only remaining people are low-income workers or old people (we're a very old country). Old people keep voting the same corrupt parties into power so nothing ever changes. - There's a big "crab mentality" about people who are wealthy being evil. Extra: The party that played the biggest role in getting rid of our dictatorship was the communist party (that's literally their name, Partido Comunista Português), so in Portugal communism is good, and capitalism is bad. There's lots of talk about taxing the rich here, but the truth is that there are no rich. We only have ONE billionare. If were to tax 100% of our rich we wouldn't be able to run the government for more than a couple of weeks.