Where am I on politics, economics, govt, finance and international today - A new life phase begins. (v1.1)
I spent a lot of time in the past understanding politics, govt, economics,
finance, and international. Once I understood what I wanted to know, I dropped
it. I think age 70 is a good time to let go of politics, economics, govt,
finance and international if possible. They disturb your mind, and this is the
age for calmer thoughts and endeavors. One should continue to observe these
things but with much more detachment. No interest in discussing such topics with anyone going forward. These blogs are it on such topics. We are retired in Hawaii.
These days I am
disconnected from the job market, stock market, bond market (a non-callable FDIC
insured CD held to term behaves very differently than ordinary bonds), real
estate/mortgage/loan market (your home is where you live possibly for life), and
largely unaffected by interest rates until close to the end of the next
president's term. Debt is 125% of GDP. A number of other countries are in worse
shape, and they don’t have the unique position of the US. The moons of
politics/economics/geopolitics have not aligned as yet for the two parties to
gain the political will to craft a deal. Not worried. We live modestly. We have
sufficient income and savings for retirement and are comfortable. But inflation
hurts everyone, especially health care inflation for seniors. Some comments on
Hawaii cost of living here: Govt 14: Key Income sources for state governments from individuals (v1.0) (jaykasi.blogspot.com)
Will pay more tax if a law is so passed and we can potentially absorb a 25% cut
in Social Security/Medicare if a law is so passed, which is a worst-case
scenario I have heard. There is little I need from things and entities like
government that normally concern people except Social Security/Medicare. Any
adverse laws passed I think we can absorb if needed. We have to a significant
extent reached a state of detachment from politics/finance/govt/economics. I
have little real tangible quantifiable personal skin in the game in the actual
political outcome except my care for the people and the planet.
The people are
spread across a wide spectrum and come in all shapes and sizes. That is
democracy. A politician like Hillary saying “Trump is supported by deplorables”
is not at all a good statement to make. The politician should blame himself or
herself if he/she cannot craft a winning campaign and loses. Don’t blame the
people. Same for voters who say that about people who do not vote for their
preferred candidate. Contribute to your preferred candidate if you care about
the election so much instead. It is primarily people younger than me who will
pick their leaders, but I have one vote I cast for Kamala. Made a sizeable
contribution to Biden/Kamala/DNC because I think this is a very consequential
election. I am concerned about proper functioning of government, and democracy and rule of law weakening. I prefer a foreign policy bent more towards other democracies than authoritarians. I also would like to see at least a minimum
level of ethics and decorum and honesty in public officials and political
candidates and a will to advance the country's interests and much less on self promotion or self interests. Otherwise, I am done
with politics likely for the rest of my life, but we will always do our duty and
vote. We are just observers going forward.
Somewhat tracking the presidential election just for this election.
Kamala gave her first interview to
CNN since she became the democratic nominee. One of her campaigns key themes is
“a new way forward”. When asked what she meant she said she was referring to a
decade of the former president's brand of politics both in and out of office.
She made this point. "There is some suggestion, warped I believe it to be, that
the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down, instead
of where I believe most Americans are, which is to believe that the true measure
of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up". She also made this
point. "I think sadly in the last decade, we have had in the former president,
someone who has really been pushing an agenda and an environment that is about
diminishing the character and the strength of who we are as Americans, really
dividing our nation. And I think people are ready to turn the page on that.".
Kamala also offered praise to her former running mate, telling CNN that Biden
“has the intelligence, the commitment, and the judgment and disposition that I
think the American people rightly deserve in their president.”. Dick Cheney said
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a
greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last
election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had
rejected him. He can never be trusted with power again,”.
On immigration, Kamala is more to the right than Biden but relatively close. Here is an article on that.
Kamala's foreign policy is quite close to Bidens as are her policies on abortion and guns. She is a former prosecutor and AG and is tough on crime. On economic policy, Biden was following a model called Bidenomics that was an adaptation of Keynesian demand side economics. There was no solid theoretical economic foundation laid before policies were rolled out. It was speculative with unclear real-world behavior. Compare Bidenomics with Harris's economic plans. Harris's economic agenda blends populism with a healthy dose of centrism. Some critics accuse the campaign of scrambling to appease warring internal factions. But her vision has drawn praise for taking a broader view of the economy. As the article states, she clearly shows she is no socialist, and is a daughter of Silicon Valley, not Scranton. Her policies have changed from before she was a VP. I would like to think it is because she has gained much more knowledge, sophistication, wisdom and judgement due to her stint as the VP over the last 4 years. I have observed her for decades and there is a new level of maturity, levelheadedness, sophistication, and self confidence in her. It is important to also note that although her approach to areas has changed, her values essentially has not changed.
Opinion | Kamala Harris offers a pro-growth economic vision - The Washington Post
Most economists believe Kamala's is a far better economic plan than Trump's. But neither Kamala nor Trump are offering more finer details of their plans.
On deficits, Wharton school estimates the following.
Summary: We estimate that the Harris Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $2.0 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes a reduction in economic activity. Lower and middle-income households generally benefit from increased transfers and credits on a conventional basis, while higher-income households are worse off.
Summary: We estimate that the Trump Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $4.1 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes economic feedback effects. Households across all income groups benefit on a conventional basis.
These numbers are net after subtracting new revenues that are also part of their proposals. The current debt is $35 trillion. But policy proposals at this stage should be taken with a grain of salt. It is campaign time!! Policy positions of a candidate are more a barometer of their priorities and how they think.
Here is a assessment on what Harris's climate approach likely will be: https://jaykasi.blogspot.com/2024/10/thoughts-on-us-climate-policy.html
In our country,
tactics and opinions like lies, disinformation, exaggeration, innuendo, deflection, applying spin,
propaganda, constructing an alternate reality, defamation, conspiracy theories,
false equivalences, prejudice and bias, ignorance, exaggerations, twisting what
an opponent says or take it out of context, faulty reasoning, misdirection,
tarring your opponent with precisely what you are guilty of, flawed whataboutism
arguments, media echo chambers, stand up a bogeyman to attack even if it doesn't
exist, falsely claim persecution or play the victims game, claim powers and accomplishments in the future or a hypothetical scenario
that cannot be evaluated, and repeating a lie again and again until people
believe it is the truth, are largely up to voters to discern and judge and
discard when casting their votes or shaping their viewpoint so I have nothing to
say about that except to say I am careful to filter these out the best I can. These are all tools in the dark art of deception and often deployed in political and social discourse.
Hawaii is heavily democratic with a gigantic population of immigrants and
children of immigrants and the only state with a minority white population. Many
people here look like me. Very comfortable here. All my wife's relatives live
here also. I am very comfortable with both whites and browns (met very few
blacks but I like many public black leaders and blacks on TV in the past and
now!!) and very comfortable with both native born and immigrants. My concern is
with a leader who chooses to resort to the politics of fear and hate and
division and who might pit whites against browns or blacks, or native born
against immigrants, or Christians against non-Christians, or male against female
and everything in between, and our overall safety if that happens. For that
issue, being in a majority brown state with a huge immigrant population that is
socially liberal and with very little gun ownership offers some comfort. Hawaii
has nice gun laws and nice abortion laws and nice end of life decision laws.
Hawaii is pretty much detached from foreign policy, but a war would have direct
impact since Hawaii would be a prime target. Tsunamis and hurricanes are of
course a possibility. Since most goods reach Hawaii by ship, logistical
disruptions are also possible. Oahu only has dormant/extinct volcanoes and there
are no earthquakes here.
Christians say, “love thy neighbor”. The world and all
its peoples are too big and complex to wrap my head around. I am satisfied with
wrapping my head around my fellow Hawaii residents and secondarily the US
residents. The state department and defense department and treasury and congress
deal with people elsewhere. I am just an observer of world events.
Living a
quiet peaceful retired life here. It is a new phase post blogging. No desire
whatsoever to visit the mainland US (unless I am on a cruise!). Been to lots of
places on mainland US already. Our friends in our last mainland US location have
mostly moved or passed away. My niece from Boston visits us every year here.
Other friends we meet when they visit here. I talk to my work colleagues/school
mates/remote relatives by email, phone, text, Facetime and WhatsApp. Hawaii is
HOME. Future vacations likely to Oceana/Asia and other pacific islands. Less likely would-be Europe. Would
like someday though to see the Canadian Rockies. But my wife says, "we live in
paradise - why would we want to go anywhere?". Would need to convince her if we
go anywhere!! I have finished blogging. Not involved with technology at all
anymore.
-------------------------------
Attached here is Chat GPT's take on Biden/Harris economic policies.
You’ve outlined a nuanced view of Kamala Harris's economic policies and how they compare to Bidenomics. Here’s a deeper dive into the differences and similarities between the two:
Bidenomics
1. Theoretical Foundation:
- Keynesian Influence: Bidenomics is largely influenced by Keynesian economics, focusing on demand-side measures to stimulate economic growth. This approach emphasizes government intervention to manage economic cycles and support consumer spending.
- Speculative Nature: As you noted, the theoretical underpinning of Bidenomics was somewhat speculative, with policies often being rolled out based on evolving economic conditions and political compromises rather than a solid theoretical framework.
2. Key Policies:
- Infrastructure and Jobs: Significant investment in infrastructure and job creation through the American Rescue Plan and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
- Social Programs: Expansion of social safety nets, including extended unemployment benefits, increased child tax credits, and healthcare subsidies.
- Climate Initiatives: Strong focus on combating climate change through clean energy investments and regulatory measures.
Kamala Harris’s Economic Policies
1. Blending Populism and Centrism:
- Populist Elements: Harris’s economic agenda incorporates populist elements, aiming to address income inequality and provide support to working and middle-class Americans. This includes advocacy for higher wages, improved labor rights, and targeted support for marginalized communities.
- Centrist Approach: At the same time, Harris’s policies reflect a centrist approach, seeking to balance progressive goals with practical considerations and broader political appeal. This might include more moderate stances on issues like corporate regulation and fiscal responsibility.
2. Evolution from Prior Positions:
- Increased Sophistication: Harris’s economic agenda has evolved, showing a more sophisticated understanding of economic issues, likely influenced by her experience as Vice President. This evolution might include more nuanced positions on taxation, spending, and regulatory policies.
- Silicon Valley Influence: As someone from Silicon Valley, Harris’s policies reflect an awareness of technology and innovation’s role in the economy. This may include support for tech-driven economic growth and investments in digital infrastructure.
3. Values and Policy Changes:
- Core Values: Despite changes in approach, Harris’s core values—such as social justice, equity, and economic fairness—remain consistent. Her policies aim to address systemic issues while adapting to current economic realities.
- Adaptation: The shift in her economic policies might be seen as a response to new information and changing conditions rather than a fundamental departure from her values.
Comparison and Analysis
1. Similarities:
- Both Bidenomics and Harris’s economic plans share a commitment to using government intervention to address economic challenges and support growth.
- Both approaches emphasize social spending and infrastructure investment as tools for economic revitalization.
2. Differences:
- Theoretical Framework: Bidenomics leans heavily on Keynesian economics, while Harris’s approach blends populism with centrism, potentially introducing new theoretical or practical considerations.
- Policy Focus: Harris’s policies might place a greater emphasis on addressing inequality and supporting technological innovation, reflecting her personal and professional background.
3. Maturity and Experience:
- Harris’s experience as Vice President has likely contributed to a more refined and balanced economic perspective. Her policies reflect a combination of her long-standing values and a pragmatic approach shaped by her recent role.
In summary, while Bidenomics and Harris’s economic policies share common ground in their use of government intervention to stimulate the economy, Harris’s agenda introduces a mix of populism and centrism with a focus on technological advancement and equity. Her evolution in policy and approach suggests a deeper understanding gained from her tenure as VP, aligning with her core values but adapting to the complexities of the current economic landscape.
Comments