296 Comments

Supply-side economics was always a con to make rich people richer. The idea that rich people would reinvest their tax savings and thereby create growth instead of just pocketing them is a Randian fantasy.

Expand full comment

"...he believes the answer to fixing the budget is cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other services."

ROB FROM THE POOR, GIVE TO THE RICH!

Robbing Hood.

Expand full comment

"people who are feeling it are not likely to listen to egghead historians and economists who keep pointing out that we’re trending in a good direction "

That's a good thing, listening to economist is how we got in this mess. If we go back to ignoring the eocnomists, things will improve immeasurably.

Expand full comment

Face it, kiddies, the Soviet Union and the early years of Communist China ran on "supply side economics" and so did many feudal leaders. Lookie what happened to them.

Expand full comment

If Old Joe believed in Bidenomics, he wouldn't still owe my $600.00.

Expand full comment

"Now please replace US Postmaster General Louis DeJoy."

And please fire him into the sun as well.

Expand full comment

G.I. Joe with the Kung-Fu Grip Economics, by Billy Ray Valentine.

Right before this when Randolph is explaining commodities to him, and he gives that look right at the camera...love it.

Expand full comment

So, ya'll are bookies!

Expand full comment

Now please replace US Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.

Replace... and shoot out of a catapult directly into the sun. The man is a cancer.

Expand full comment

Lol I should read before posting...though firing him into the sun twice would not hurt.

Expand full comment

I don't care if you replace him with Laurence Llewellyn Bowen (looping in Trading Spaces)

Expand full comment

with his magnificent personal knowledge of business-fella-ing

Misspelled “fellating”

Expand full comment

So, what does "business fellating" look like? Now, on the other hand, if your business is fellating, THAT I understand.

Fuck Ted Cruz.

Expand full comment

Business fellating looks like tax cuts. It’s always tax cuts.

Fuck Ted Cruz

Expand full comment

None of this will matter until houses are affordable again and the rent isn't $1800 per month for the most basic apartment.

Expand full comment

Try finding a studio apt in NYC for that.

Expand full comment

Not even in Atlanta, or its suburbs.

Expand full comment

When rents are more expensive than mortgages on 3 bdrm places in the same part of town, something f'd up is going on.

Expand full comment

Thanks to private equity and other rich fuckers for buying up a huge amount of housing stock over the last 10+ years that would usually be bought by regular people, but then they turn it into a rental and jack up the rents. The cost of a down payment is too high compared to median wages, so people are stuck renting even if the mortgage would be comparable. Soulless corporate landlord also has zero incentives to make repairs, etc. because the tenant could only move to another rental with a corporate fucking slumlord.

I'm sure it's not the only reason, but it's gotta be a decent amount of the problem.

Expand full comment

Builders are the same. Why build affordable units when you can slap on some cheap veneer and stainless steel appliances and call them LuXuRy ApArtMent HOmEs, Or three McMansions you can't afford on one lot.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I hate that shit — I call it Faux Fancy

Expand full comment

PAB has also threatened to impose even broader tariffs on imported goods ( not just Chinese ), thus combining tax cuts for the rich and higher prices for the rest of us - because who pays the tariffs? Not the country on whose goods the tariffs are imposed, but by the consumers of those goods, no mate what that fuckhead constantly claims ( he's still talking about how much money China paid us for his damned tariffs ).

Expand full comment

Prices are higher now than they were when Trump was president. Therefore, Trump was better with the economy.

That's it. That's as far as the thinking goes for too many people.

Biden's reelection is threatened because people are fucking idiots about the economy, as well as about many, many other things.

Expand full comment

WaPo has a front page article today (12/30) about how blue collar workers have prospered under Biden. Wish they realized that.

Expand full comment

Prices are higher BECAUSE Trump was "president".

Nobody's done anything about the antitrust laws, Republicans refused to pass laws outlawing price-gouging, and the corporations were the others who took advantage of those tax cuts (and, like the billionaire individuals, they refused to reinvest their savings and instead indulged in stock buybacks).

Of course, nobody who would reflexively vote for the Fascist Orange is going to sift through all those facts.

But they are important for the people who are confused but who don't have them.

Expand full comment

Bill Clinton campaigned on "It's the economy, stupid", but PAB says "It's the stupid, stupid"

Expand full comment

i wish there was a way we could get more people to understand this.

Expand full comment

Also, it's later than it used to be, which is especially bad for older Americans.

Expand full comment

That's about the size of it.

Expand full comment

A side effect of the magical thinking inherent to supply side economics is an absolute faith in The Market. If you turn on CNBC it's always about whether The Market does or doesn't like something. O Market what shall sate thee?!

Expand full comment

I've always said that if you want to know if something is good for the average person economically see how much the Dow Jones drops.

Expand full comment

Don't forget the stock buy backs that do nothing except artificially inflate stock prices. If you have a company with a stock price of $100 with a million shares trading, the value of the company on the stock market is $100 million. If you buy back 100,000 shares at $100 and shred them, you still have a company with a value of $100 million but each share is now worth about $111 since there are only 900,000 shares outstanding. So that does nothing to change the actual value of the company, it's still $100 million, but it made the biggest stockholders an 11% profit overnight.

The company did not spend the money on things that might actually increase the value of the company, like expand into new markets, develop less costly manufacturing processes, or engage in more R&D. They give it mainly to major stockholders

and corporate execs with big stock options. Stock buy backs should be charged at least a 50% tax, if not banned entirely. There are very few examples of where it really benefits a company and that is often when they are in financial trouble and need that boost in stock prices to keep investors buying.

Expand full comment

And then when they need to raise cash they issue bonds.

Expand full comment

Thanks for explaining this; I never really understood what the whole buy-back thing really was.

Expand full comment

Stock buybacks USED to be illegal. That genius Ronald Reagan changed that.

Expand full comment

Just to pile on further - Companies will only "expand into new markets, develop less costly manufacturing processes, or engage in more R&D" if those activites are highly likely to provide a substantial return on investment. And that can only happen if there's plenty of - what's the word - DEMAND for their products/services/whatever. IOW, regular people need to have enough money to buy that shit.

Tax cuts to the corporation make no difference whatsoever - the costs to the company of "expand into new markets, develop less costly manufacturing processes, or engage in more R&D" all come off the top line before taxes are calculated.

Expand full comment

So I assume when growth is 4.8% next quarter the headline will be

“GDP falls by nearly 2% overall putting a pin in Bidens hope for a solid economy going into the election”

Expand full comment

It occurred to me the other day that even though Home Alone has been out there playing every year since 1990, the wealth status of the McAllister family - while it may have been something some of us wondered about idly and privately - never made it to the headlines of the NYT until this year. The timing just feels interesting.

Turns out, according to economists and data analysts, they would be in the top 1%. Huh. Does it speak to a growing awareness of income inequality, or is the NYT trying to make the top 1% seem more relatable so we peasants to put them up against the wall come the revolution?

Expand full comment

Hollywood has no conception of the economics of we lesser beings - except how much more they can charge for movie tickets.

Expand full comment

They were paying for like 15 family members to go to Europe during the Holidays That would cost, ballpark, about 60000 dollars today depending on the accommodations. My wife and I are probably middle lower upper middle class (if that makes sense)? And no way could we afford that.

Expand full comment

I don't know more than one or two people I'd travel with. Fifteen would be a clusterfuck.

Expand full comment

"middle lower upper middle class" looks like it may need some brackets Algebra style.

Expand full comment

I mean, if you compare them to the average Midwest polka player...

Why yes I did watch that movie last night. Why do you ask?

Expand full comment
Error