3 ms·
> Billionaire wealth grew an average of 57.1% under Democratic administrations compared to 16.5% under Republican administrations over the past 40 years. This c
by lapcat 1y ago
> Billionaire wealth grew an average of 57.1% under Democratic administrations compared to 16.5% under Republican administrations over the past 40 years. This counterintuitive pattern suggests many billionaire political donors prioritize immediate tax cuts over the stronger economic growth that historically occurs under Democratic policies.
I don't think we can assume that billionaire wealth would have grown even more with uninterrupted Democratic administrations. I suspect that tax cuts and deregulation during Republican administrations were essential for future growth of their wealth, with effects lasting many years afterward. (The Democratic administrations never fully undid, if they undid at all, the tax cuts and deregulation that occurred in previous Republican administrations.) Also, I think if Democrats were holding onto power comfortably, there would be more calls for and less resistance to anti-billionaire economic policies coming from the left wing.
I'd be interested to see the chart of billionaire wealth growth compared to median income growth. Billionaires claim that it's not a zero-sum game, but if you look at the % of campaign contributions by the most wealthy, that's hard to believe. Relative wealth matters a lot. If the overall economy is growing, that ultimately gives more power to labor, who can more easily change jobs and demand higher wages, so there may be an occasional, intentional reset—an economic downturn, layoffs, etc.—just to put labor in its place and ensure continued billionaire dominance over the masses.
- satyrun 1y agoIt is comparing the stock market to wage growth and making up stories about arbitrary windows of stock market returns.
- lapcat 1y agoWhat does "It" refer to in your comment? The article does not mention wage growth; I'm the one who suggested that adding wage growth to the chart might be interesting and informative.
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoI would encourage you to research the amazing difference between Republican and Democratic administrations when it comes to economic performance in general. Democratic administrations economic performance is always massively better. The differences are stark, where Democratic policies encourage both GDP and wage growth. They hold true across all major economic indicators, such as gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.” The reason is very simple. Republicans have spent years wedded to austerity economics while Democrats are explicitly dedicated to job growth for the middle class and high taxes on the rich. Republicans continue their austerity policies as well as adopting policies aimed at making life easier for corporations and the wealthy. Democrats, by contrast, continue to focus on the poor and the working class.
- egberts1 1y agoShould we only focus on US House and their party-in-control (as stated in Article I Section 7 of U.S. Constitution) Should we factor in six-month delay for enacted OMNIBUS to take effect? Should we even delve further to even variable enactment delays of each bill?
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoThe point is it doesn't matter. You can do the analysis however you choose. It's incontrovertible. We are all poorer because of austerity economics ... even the billionaires.