I’m sure I will get downvoted into oblivion for this, but I’ve gotten a pretty reasonable answer to this question from someone who grew up in the south, and was a descendent of slave owners.
A huge amount of the economy of the southern states was dependent on slave laborers, and suddenly, they were stripped of their investments into those slaves, so they were disproportionately affected economically, and have been behind ever since.
Its likely not the entire reason, but its also hard to see it not being a contributing factor, especially historically.
For the past 60 years the majority of recessions have started during Republican presidencies. GDP growth and deficit reduction also favors Democrat presidencies.
That has far more to do with the boom-bust business cycle creating waves of anti-tax conservative-leaning voters when markets are good and waves of pro-public spending liberal-leaning voters when markets go bad.
Similarly, the D/R economic divide has much more to do with Republicans heavily investing in export-oriented state economies (particularly those with big fossil fuel reserves) while Democrats coast on the LBJ legacy that plays well in large urban metroplexes. So, consider Wyoming, which is practically a fief of the Cheney (really Vincent, Dick just married in) family for decades. The state is practically a company town, what with the volume of O&G exploitation that commands employment. And the Vincent/Cheney clan sits at the top of the pyramid. They’re heavily invested in Republican politics, because Republicans are deeper in the pockets of fossil fuel business.
Swing over to Kentucky, where a deeply conservative democrat Governor Andy Beshear holds office, or pop up to Vermont, where one of the last liberal Republicans Phil Scott holds sway, or pop over to New Jersey where Republicans periodically go into and out of high office because their Dem counterparts are constantly getting indicted for SEC violations and bribery scandals, you’ll get a different political dynamic despite the same two parties running the show.
Ultimately, both parties are invested in the long term growth of the FIRE sector and a US political hegemony internationally. So their policies don’t vary significantly, outside of a few niche hot-buttons. Fights over abortion and the rights of trans-people simply don’t have a huge impact on the state or national economies. By contrast, their alignment on education privatization and their focus on a steady return for stock portfolios means every state from California to Florida to New York to Texas has the same set boilerplate set of problems - skyrocketing real estate costs, ballooning student/medical debts, stagnant wages, decaying urban infrastructure, and enormous wealth inequality thanks to wave after wave of scams at the public and private levels.
I always wondered what does president have to do with recessions or other “times” . Isn’t it basically over payed position and main job is to smile at the Camera ? Otherwise it would be monarchy would it not ?
(For the reddit like literals, it’s exaggerating and oversimplification bordering joke that highlights basic point. That is a president should represent a nation not govern it ) .
There’s a few ways the president can impact the economy, though not by themself. Usually the majority of the rest of the government is involved too.
The first is that the president is de facto leader of their party. This isn’t an enumerated power, but traditionally the way the parties work. So the president, usually, has a lot of cooperation from their party’s Congressional members.
Second, it is generally typical for the House and Senate to switch to the control of the same party as the president. This is due to general voting attitudes, as most people vote down the ticket for their party. This can vary with Congressional term limits though.
Third, veto power. Even when Congress and the President are not aligned, the president can veto laws that would have a significant impact on the economy. The opposition party would need a super majority to override that veto.
Lastly, there is executive order. This can impact foreign trade, infrastructure, and regulations. Sometimes these are found unlawful by the courts and rescinded, but they can still have had an impact before then.
So as it’s basically as i said. Not a ruler just a representative. Aside from president being commander-in-chief of the armed forces of course.
Those to be associated with economical changes are people themselves and the part of the government that made laws affecting the economy.
President is more or less the either lucky or unlucky about time of election or rather the economy cycle stage.
Yup, you can tell who they are because they dined out laughing and having fun while.making thier constitutes stand 6 feet apart in masks unallowed to dine out. They also innovative with grat jobs for the masses like creating human poop maps. They also do so much to make sure everyone has a few feet if side walk to live on
I’ll tell you what, Cletus. A bunch of demonKKKrats are saying things I don’t like to think about, so here’s what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna go on that there post, and I’m gonna write a bunch of stupid shit that don’t make no sense! Yeah brother, that’ll show them commie fucks, I’ll tell you what!
Capitalism favors a slight shortage against an inelastic demand, to maximize profits. Farming subsidies protect our food supply by ensuring significant excess supply during normal conditions, and sufficient food supply during droughts, disasters, and other calamities.
However, all that subsidized excess production tanks the market price of agricultural products during normal market conditions. Any state that relies on farming as a primary source of revenue is going to be poor and heavily reliant on subsidies.
Over history there has always been competition between progressivism and conservatism. Progressivism has always lead to more advanced technological development, but led also to nihilism and dying off due to losing purpose and goals. Conservatism is the opposite. It stifles technological development but leads more to happiness and fulfillment by having instinctive goals that have always worked in making people happy over time.
I don’t believe one should exclude the other. We should learn from both.
There are a lot of correlations there. Places that have more trade are typically the “economic powerhouses”. Places that have more trade also have more exposure to other cultures and lifestyles tend to be more liberal. Places that are more affluent attract more people including immigrants (goes with trade) and places that are have more immigration tend to be more liberal.
There really needs to be a middle ground… Under Republicans you can build things… Under Democrats you literally have to hope you can afford a house while navigating a maze of regulation.
Housing is a supply and demand thing. If pricing is crazy high that means people really want to live there. If the statement is “under democrats run areas housing is always really expensive!” then that’s basically saying there’s a shit ton of demand to live in democrats controlled areas.
In many aspects I’d say yes… Especially in the fact that you don’t have control of how you build the home… AND it increases the barriers to home ownership. I would have loved to be able to build one of those shipping container based homes with the atrium between them, but you basically need a lawyer to navigate the minefield of laws and code. Plus God forbid you build something not connected to electric.
You’re right it’s better to let people freeze to death! Screw em! Seriously who needs water??? I want to install unsafe electrical lines that will cause an electrical fire!!
Yup though it is better to have those problems in a HOUSE than it is to have them on a STREET SIDE… Do you understand what I’m saying… It shouldn’t be illegal to live in a campervan while you’re building up your home.
Now do structural calculations for the roof, foundation, walls. Heating calculations for HVAC and insulation. Whatever calcs for the water and wastewater. That’s about 3 or 4 engineering degrees! Don’t forget all those trades to install it all correctly! That’s another what 10 years for all of them. I doubt you can do the actual electrical calcs for wire sizing (actual engineering calculations). Can’t forget architecture for building envelope. Gas line. The list just keeps going. Ok I have to stop trying to reason with a housecat with Dunning Kruger. Chow to whatever simplistic reply you may have.
Dude what are you on about… I’m guessing you’re a tradesman or a landlord. I just hate the design of my current home, and really would’ve preferred to build something more insulated, and build with more resilient materials. I’m literally talking about a small structure between two shipping containers. Just to me housing shouldn’t be as gatekept as you seem to support. New housing is like a ponzi scheme of low quality materials built to maximize profit.
White supremacists - surprise, surprise - only cares about the idea of whiteness. They never actually care all that much about actual white people themselves.
It probably has something to do with the fact that right-wing ideology (of which white supremacism is merely one) consists of nothing more than excuses, pretexts and lies designed to protect and benefit power and privilege and nothing else.
I have two half-Thai cousins who are hardcore white supremacists. It’s so weird to talk to people who are so into an ideology that excludes them in particular.
Here’s the top 20 rated cities for homicide. List is less simple because they take into account other factors, but Chicago is #27 (rated #13 based on solely homicide rates)
Isn’t Washington, DC our country’s capital or something? Is it #1 on the list because it has a higher rate than other places or because there is a smaller population living there, and its popularity attracts a broad variety of people who dont normally live there? Like why is usa’s main capitol the #1 in the list?
This is a statistical term meant to signify that this is an average based on the number of residents in the area. DC is number #1 because of it’s large amount of murders compared to the small number of residents.
If you’re going to compare crime statistics, most statisticians divide the number of a crime (homicide) by the city population then multiply it by the largest unit of measurement they each have in common (usually 100,000).
Short and long of it: DC is the “city-est” city… Because it was carved out as a small patch ahead of time, only the most urban areas fall inside DC, whereas the more peaceful outskirts and suburbs that would normally dilute the crime stats are excluded
DC has a police problem as much as a crime problem. Also, Congress literally just blocked a re-write of the criminal code which took decades to write and was supposed to finally put restorative justice front and center. So DC has a Congress problem as well.
One thing to look out for: it’s pretty hard to objectively compare city crime rates because the city boundaries might include nicer or worse neighborhoods that dilute or concentrate the crime rates.
That’s why DC is at the top of the list… The way the city was defined, it’s the “city-est” city on the list.
You could also look at St Louis, MO vs East St Louis, IL. would it be rational to conclude that Illinois is DRAMATICALLY worse based on this data?
The biggest problem I have with that chart is it only includes the 40 largest cities. The city I live in is in a deep red state and is run by a Republican mayor. Our homicide rate is 6.5 That’s enough to put us at #20. That’s worse than Chicago but 3/4 of a point but because we have a population that is a 1/3 the size of the cut-off for the chart we don’t get mentioned.
Poor and uneducated people, as a whole, always more tend to vote conservative. Conservative parties around the world know this and strive for/want to keep this condition
Is this true globally or a USofA thing? On oneside of my family the entire lineage is working class in East Scotland. THey are died in the wool Labour voter’s and won’t entertain any Conservatism, when Labour shifted more central under Blair etc a few switched to voting for Socialist candidates, one went nationalist, but from my understanding this is the norm there.
I can’t really provide a good source, didn’t find a proper study by a quick google search, I believe it would be hard to track worldwide. But here in germany it’s definitely the point with the party AfD.
And i mean it makes sense. Right populist politicians providing simple, easy to understand solutions, that don’t work or even harm their own voters, for problems that they’re addressing, that they made up, blaming easy targets, mostly foreigners who didn’t do shit, for it. No need to think on your own if you have a stronk Führer to follow, promising paradise for you.
It’s also easier to focus on a smaller group that you feel more affiliated, familiar with, than to think about absolute fairness on a bigger scale and make concessions. It’s easier to shout “they’re stealing our jobs” than thinking about being part of the problem by fucking up the economy of the country they came from. Or support the countries development, because that way they’d lose a useful scapegoat
Very true, the danger of the “other” is very easy to whip up some support against and create a sense of something to unite against… scary how easy a populace is to manipulate
Your observations are similar to my experience as well. Conservatives I know are regular people who, I think, feel overwhelmed by things they don’t understand and whose self-protection response to fear and change is anger. They essentially want to simplify the world by reducing diversity.
One thing that I find interesting about this group is that most of them used to stew relatively quietly until imposed upon. I think that the rise of social censure for politically incorrect speech has had a strong rallying effect on them. That’s why people like Jordan Peterson went from zeroes to heroes on the right. I hate to say it, but I think we on the left made a huge tactical error by aggressively regulating speech through social censure. Obviously, conservatives have always been out there in large numbers, but the imposition of rather doctrinaire political correctness, combined with the connecting and “outing” power of the internet, has led to them becoming much more vocal and politically active. Now, the right and the left have become not just rivals but mortal enemies.
There are also the religious extremists who want to remake the world in the image of their holy book, but that’s a whole other nefarious kettle of fish. They are rather cynically using the anger of the populist right to forward their agenda. There is no better example of this than evangelicals lionizing a moral retard like Trump.
Conservative policies have literally never been effective either socially or economically. They only funnel money from the poor to the rich. That’s it.
If we’re going to post these things post proof with it so we can actually stick it to them, otherwise I’m tired of this shit. You look stupid as fuck without the proof. I wanna stick it to them too but I’m not sure where the best place to show proof for this sort of thing is, like what official government site has the data to show this?
There are rankings for all of this shit. You can easily look them up. They are also pretty familiar to anyone who follows politics. Can you type “states ranked by gdp” into your preferred search engine? Or “states ranked by education?” Does your mom masticate your food for you?
You have to realize how stupid people are though… most people will see this, possibly post it on Facebook or Twitter just to argue with people and have no proof of what it’s saying. You’re dumb for thinking this does anything without the proof being at least a damn qr code embedded into the meme. Y’all want change but are too dumb to assist in it! Put qr codes in your memes that link to the proof so it shuts these normies down that post this shit where most Republicans hang out anyways.
Add comment