Economic Issues Underrated

[Beet]

Heres the difference between social issues vs. economic issues. Social issue debates can go on forever with opposing and irrefutable differences in values. Economic issues, while having a values component, can predominantly be settled by a number of indicators that all sides agree are beneficial: low inflation, low unemployment, low poverty, high GDP growth, high job growth, and high median income growth.

In other words, economic issues can be settled while social issues cannot be settled. This means that while party partisans can self-righteously and confidently defend their respective positions on social issues, they cannot, in general with a straight face defend economic policies that are clearly failing or attack policies that clearly worked.

Hence, economic issues are more likely to result in a decisive win, at one point in history or another, than social issues, so they are actually more important (besides the fact that they affect people's lives much more). Just a theory.

[Erc]

I vote almost purely on economic issues (with foreign and social policy issues being just large enough in my mind to prevent me from becoming a Libertarian).

[Beet]

Precisely. The Reagan revolution didn't occur on the back of gay bashing. It occured on the back of a failing economy. The primary cause of the rise of the left from 1800-1960 was the reproductive nature of industrial technology, favoring centralization, and the primary cause of the rise of the right since 1960 has been the advancement of society into the information age, with technology favoring a totally different organizational structure, favoring decentralization. Social issues have virtually nothing to do with it.

[TeePee4Prez]

Heres the difference between social issues vs. economic issues. Social issue debates can go on forever with opposing and irrefutable differences in values. Economic issues, while having a values component, can predominantly be settled by a number of indicators that all sides agree are beneficial: low inflation, low unemployment, low poverty, high GDP growth, high job growth, and high median income growth.

In other words, economic issues can be settled while social issues cannot be settled. This means that while party partisans can self-righteously and confidently defend their respective positions on social issues, they cannot, in general with a straight face defend economic policies that are clearly failing or attack policies that clearly worked.

Hence, economic issues are more likely to result in a decisive win, at one point in history or another, than social issues, so they are actually more important (besides the fact that they affect people's lives much more). Just a theory.

While I am more socially liberal than I am economically, I vote economics.  Now would I vote for a Jim Greenwood/Connie Morella over a an extreme leftie economically?  Sure I would.  I tend to value my left-centrism economically.  Closest to it usually gets my vote.  Social issues are usually a kicker and I will bitch about them, but I'd say between 70 and 80% of my decision is economics.

[opebo]

This is a nice theory, but in practice both parties in the US are about the same on economic issues.  So I vote on social issues.

[Josh/Devilman88]

If voted on economic issues only i would be a democrat

[Lunar]

I prioritize social issues much more than economics.

My view on economics is that it's circular.  If the government takes 50 dollars out of the economy and then gives everyone that 50 dollars worth of services, then who cares?

[Bono]

I prioritize social issues much more than economics.

My view on economics is that it's circular.  If the government takes 50 dollars out of the economy and then gives everyone that 50 dollars worth of services, then who cares?

It much less simple than that. First, the persons who benefit from the 50 dolars taxed by the state proably are not the ones taxed, so they  wil have a net loss. Second, the state is such an inneficient organization, that it the output of services is much lower than the input of taxes.

Ludwig von Mises' Bureocracy analyses that extensively.

[A18]

Bono? Democrat? Quit confusing me!

[Wakie]

Economic issues are huge.  One of the major issues that the world (not just the US) is looking at right now is the danger of the falling value of the US dollar.  Most nations use the US dollar as their method for maintaining national wealth.  As the value of the dollar falls, so too falls the value held by most governments around the world.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote mostly on economics, but the Republican party's extremist stance on social issues would stop me from voting for them even if you took economics out.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I prioritize social issues much more than economics.

My view on economics is that it's circular.  If the government takes 50 dollars out of the economy and then gives everyone that 50 dollars worth of services, then who cares?

so you'd have no problem voting for me? You once said that we aren't that different socially, but economically, I scare the sh**t out of you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is a nice theory, but in practice both parties in the US are about the same on economic issues.  So I vote on social issues.

If you really think that then you are an idiot

[A18]

This is a nice theory, but in practice both parties in the US are about the same on economic issues.  So I vote on social issues.

If you really think that then you are an idiot

Um, even if he doesn't really think that, he is still an idiot.

[John Dibble]

I prioritize social issues much more than economics.

My view on economics is that it's circular.  If the government takes 50 dollars out of the economy and then gives everyone that 50 dollars worth of services, then who cares?

It much less simple than that. First, the persons who benefit from the 50 dolars taxed by the state proably are not the ones taxed, so they  wil have a net loss. Second, the state is such an inneficient organization, that it the output of services is much lower than the input of taxes.

Ludwig von Mises' Bureocracy analyses that extensively.

Agreed. Also, it must be considered that the person you take 50 dollars from, even if he does directly benefit from the service, may not feel that that service is worth the 50 dollars paid in. Values of goods and services are determined by the individual - a government service may be worth $100 to you, even though you only pay $50, which is good in your mind, but to me it might be worth only $25, and I'm paying in the same $50. If this was a free market good or service, I wouldn't be paying anything into it, but since the government uses taxation to pay for the service I'm stuck paying more than I really am willing to.

[opebo]

This is a nice theory, but in practice both parties in the US are about the same on economic issues.  So I vote on social issues.

If you really think that then you are an idiot

My point was they are quite similar, and that the Democrats are essentially a pro-business slightly right of center party.  Sure, the Republicans are a bit further right on economic issues, but the most important thing for someone like me to note is that the Democrats are no threat to Capital.

[Lunar]

I prioritize social issues much more than economics.

My view on economics is that it's circular.  If the government takes 50 dollars out of the economy and then gives everyone that 50 dollars worth of services, then who cares?

so you'd have no problem voting for me? You once said that we aren't that different socially, but economically, I scare the sh**t out of you.

I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as a bad/extreme economic policy, merely that whether it is leaning left or right doesn't really matter to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Economics is structed in such a way that all the money is ultimately related.  If the "rich" are taxed, it affects the poor in almost equivilant amounts.

As to inneficiency, both governments and the market have advantages and disadvantages.  They can check each other when the right amount of socialism is combined with capitalism.