[noemon]

Median real wages are growing. 50% earn more and 50% earn less. I wasn't talking about billionaires.

I'm not following either sentence? Can you expand on what you mean?

[Istanbuller]

Keynesians do not see inflation as a problem. You all know Keynes's famous saying "In the long run, we are all dead". He wants to mention that "We should live on daily basis. Future is not important. It is all up to next generations".

Americans and Europeans, despite all left leaning governments they have and had, did not experience inflation problem seriously. It is because they enjoyed high reputation in fincnaical markets and being able to reach cheap credits from international markets. Otherwise, they would experience hyper inflation many times during last 70 years.

Europeans and Americans are people who born with spoon in mouth. Privileged people.

Come to Turkey and live here. Later tell me if inflation is problem or not.

[Rugoz]

I'm not following either sentence? Can you expand on what you mean?

Median is the median https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median. It's what the "average worker" earns (not what a worker earns on average).

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

The large increase and decrease after 2019Q4 is due to Covid, where lots of low-income workers were let go (which increased the median wage) and then hired again (which decreased it). But the employment rate has stabilized, so I'd say the increase since mid-2022 is "real".

[Rugoz]

Come to Turkey and live here. Later tell me if inflation is problem or not.

The inflation rate in Turkey is more than 20x higher than in the US.

Yet Turks still voted for Erodgan.

Go figure.

[Istanbuller]

The inflation rate in Turkey is more than 20x higher than in the US.

Yet Turks still voted for Erodgan.

Go figure.

Everyone is Keynesian. It doesn't really matter who i vote since it is like this.

You would be same without cheap credits.

[Rugoz]

Everyone is Keynesian.

True, but none of them would say 70% inflation is not a problem. It's rather a question of whether the medium-term target should be 2% or 4%.

It doesn't really matter who i vote since it is like this.

Sure. Voting for a guy who dislikes interest rate hikes because Islamic teachings prohibit "usury" has no consequence on inflation whatsoever.

[Rancid]

Obviously. "Anything" that does not attempt a coup is preferable.

Yes, basically.

As for Trump being better for the economy. CEO's think he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/14/ceos-at ... essed.html

The idea he's better for the economy is baffling. He's might be better for big corporations, not workers though. Corporations like dealing with (relatively more) corrupt politicians.

"Several CEOs “said that [Trump] was remarkably meandering, could not keep a straight thought [and] was all over the map,” Andrew Ross Sorkin, co-host of CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” reported."

[JohnRawls]

Everyone is Keynesian. It doesn't really matter who i vote since it is like this.

You would be same without cheap credits.

Keynesianism as an idea exists complementary to monetarism nowadays and modern monetary theory. Looking at stuff just from the side of Keynesianism is stupid sort off and countries to become "keynesian" in your understanding under crysis conditions usually because of the pressure from the people. In a political mindset "keynesianism" provides a solution while the other option is to do nothing.

Every model has it flaws is what I am trying to say. Its not like the period of Keynesianism didn't end with Monetarism prevailing. And then Monetarism sort of ended with it being replaced what we got today. Our overall knowledge of the economy and processes within it certainly advanced since the 1930s by a super large degree actually. So a simple argument of less or more spending is far more complicated now or more precise word would be funding and growing.

[JohnRawls]

Yes, basically.

As for Trump being better for the economy. CEO's think he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/14/ceos-at ... essed.html

The idea he's better for the economy is baffling. He's might be better for big corporations, not workers though. Corporations like dealing with (relatively more) corrupt politicians.

Its a good question. I doubt the larger companies care either way actually but Biden is probably a bit more preferable considering his track record and circumstances. He did way better economically speaking than Trump by a lot of statistics from number of jobs to stock market. He got fucked by inflation but that is also his own doing but inflation by itself ain't bad and might be actually helpful long term since it kills credit problems. Its only a problem if wages don't catch up.

[Rancid]

Its a good question. I doubt the larger companies care either way actually but Biden is probably a bit more preferable considering his track record and circumstances. He did way better economically speaking than Trump by a lot of statistics from number of jobs to stock market. He got fucked by inflation but that is also his own doing but inflation by itself ain't bad and might be actually helpful long term since it kills credit problems. Its only a problem if wages don't catch up.

Agree, they don't care either way, but the one thing that corporations like is predictability. This is why those executives were so baffled by him. While Trump advertises that he can be bought (remember that meeting with oil executes a few weeks ago?), they still need to have confidence that there will be some form of predictability that they can operate under if he were president. They want to know "What is the paradigm/framework you will work under as president". So when Trump was asked "What is the reason behind a 20% corporate tax?", and he said "It's a good round number". That's an indicator of someone who's not really thinking about this. He's a guy that flies by the seat of his pants. This would make even corporate execs unsure about him. Which is exactly what occurred.

Of course, they will still donate to both him and Biden to be in the good graces of either.

All of that said, to think Trump is better for poor people is . Let's also recall that Biden negotiated $35/month insulin. Something that helps the poor on a huge scale.

[Deutschmania]

Going to be difficult if Biden refuses.

I think the Democrats could win this easily with a younger candidate, but here they are, being stuck with this old fool.

I feel that historically this could be analogous to the situation in the German Weimar Republic , under its elderly president , Paul von Hindenburg .

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/06/weimars-lessons-for-bidens-america/

As I have stated before , I feel that liberal democracy , and the adjacent free market economy seems to be as antiquated now as it was a century ago . The dotard old guard appears to embody just how out of date and out of touch the ruling establishment really is . I think that going into the future , the contrasting choices that subsequent generations will be faced with , in this post-industrial time , in which liberalism is increasingly becoming passe , will be between right-wing national populism , with its economic nationalism , and left-wing social populism , along with some sort of market socialism . But in the mean time , in the United States , as it relates to Trump , as with France , in regards to Le Pen , there must be a popular front coalition , in opposition to such resurgent post-fascism .

https://jacobin.com/2024/06/france-popular-front-macron-le-pen

[noemon]

[noemon]

All of that said, to think Trump is better for poor people is .

That is where you 're at. And it's true as well because with Trump there would be no war in Ukraine and there would be no inflationary crisis either.
Inflation spikes are killers of lower income people, they basically wipe them out and that's exactly what's happened in several locations across the US & Europe, proletarisation on a massive scale within a very short period of time. This was entirely avoidable and purely a Democrats-led policy.

[Unthinking Majority]

That is where you 're at. And it's true as well because with Trump there would be no war in Ukraine and there would be no inflationary crisis either.
Inflation spikes are killers of lower income people, they basically wipe them out and that's exactly what's happened in several locations across the US & Europe, proletarisation on a massive scale within a very short period of time. This was entirely avoidable and purely a Democrats-led policy.

Almost all significant inflation happened due to COVID and thus the reduction in supply of most goods and increase of demand in certain goods/services. It seems this has created new pricing norms across entire industries with businesses obviously not wanting to reduce prices post-COVID unless forced to via price reductions from their competitors.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes, basically.

As for Trump being better for the economy. CEO's think he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/14/ceos-at ... essed.html

The idea he's better for the economy is baffling. He's might be better for big corporations, not workers though. Corporations like dealing with (relatively more) corrupt politicians.

"Several CEOs “said that [Trump] was remarkably meandering, could not keep a straight thought [and] was all over the map,” Andrew Ross Sorkin, co-host of CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” reported."

I have no thoughts about that actual conference, but as an aside that has to be one of the most poorly written pieces of journalism i've ever read.

[RealPolitic]

This was just one debate. Former President Obama lost his first debate during his second re-election bid. Hillary won all her debates against Trump. Debate victories or multiple debate victories doesn't necessarily mean that the person who won the debate(s) will be elected.

[Unthinking Majority]

When Trump lies it's almost effortless for him, and the casualness of it is dangerous because it appears sometimes indistinguishable from when he's not lying, which means people can't tell if some of the lies are actually lies unless they already know the actual truth. Some of his lies he also seems to actually belief himself, like "the big steal", and so it seems like the truth and is therefore convincing unless, again, you know otherwise. The man is an effective con artist, likely honed with a lifetime of practice. Like it or not, it's a huge plus for him as a politician.

Some politicians you can often tell when they're lying because they just aren't good at it.

[Unthinking Majority]

This was just one debate. Former President Obama lost his first debate during his second re-election bid. Hillary won all her debates against Trump. Debate victories or multiple debate victories doesn't necessarily mean that the person who won the debate(s) will be elected.

Trump is actually an effective debater, especially for not knowing much about the issues. He's hilarious and he's very good at humiliating his opponents and thus making them seem weak. Remember "low energy" Jeb Bush? Con men can talk their way out of anything.

[Rancid]

Trump is actually an effective debater, especially for not knowing much about the issues. He's hilarious and he's very good at humiliating his opponents and thus making them seem weak. Remember "low energy" Jeb Bush? Con men can talk their way out of anything.

This say's a lot about the people that watch these debates and use that as the sole determining factor on their vote.

[Unthinking Majority]

This say's a lot about the people that watch these debates and use that as the sole determining factor on their vote.

Yeah but who would you rather sit down and have a beer with?