I think on the average social programs decrease our standard of living,
How can you possible say that without working through the details? What you have stated is equivalent, in AGW terms, to the original work by John Tyndall, who figured out that CO2 could have an effect on the earth's temperature. IMO, you have not even done as well, because I suspect you have the sign incorrect. You have to do a very detailed accounting of who the money is coming from (richer people) how they would spend it, how those who got the money spent it instead, and also look at such diverse things as crime and the cost of police, etc. Not easy I admit, but you certainly can't claim to get anywhere near knowing the sign, let alone the fractional figure until you do so.
I think state and federal minimum wages also decrease our standard of living. And in fact in many cases they decrease it most of the worst off, because they create unemployment. OTOH they are often low enough so that the effect on unemployment probably isn't all that great.
Once again, I think you failed to even get the sign correct. I happen to live in Oregon, which has had one of the highest minimum wages now for a few years. My town is a small ag based area, so minimum wage increases directly affect most employers and many employees. What happened is that the Hispanic ag workers very noticeably improved their lifestyle, and AFAIK, no farmers went out of business as a result. For Hispanic couples, with both husband and wife working, they now have incomes, which are about equal to the local median income, and their consumption of goods has grown to match that. I do suspect that the ag products going out of here might cost a little more, but nobody is having problems selling everything.
There is another very significant thing which happens. When people can afford a newer car, when they can dress well, dine out now and then, and even as many of them are doing now, buy a starter home, the pride and enjoyment they develop in their lives is worth every penny of the minimum wage increase. That is something that economists who BS about the minimum wage have not a clue about.
I have watched this happen with my own two eyes, and I'll not be hoodwinked by somebody who does not know what they are talking about. And further, since I employ said people, it has cost me as well, but I'm not bitching in the least.
Generally tax decreases and tax simplification will help the economy and people's standards of living while increases and added complexity will do the opposite.
Again, you lack the details. Tax decreases to what point, zero? If you really think that I disagree. I agree with you if the tax rate is high. But we need to define "high". The federal budget has run about 20-22% of GDP for many years, so I would take that as a starting point. So, tax decreases when the rate is "high" are positive, but if the rate is "low" the sign changes. You have to get enough detail correct to even get the sign right.
The borrowing is less distorting than raising the same money thought our complex tax laws, but if you borrow you create pressure for future tax increases.
Again, that makes no sense. If you actually think that is correct, should the government not tax at all, but just borrow?
I wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing for the claim that there is a benefit, because even though I believe there is, I'm not strongly convinced, and I don't have a lot of data or argument to back up the claim.
I agree with you here. But it is a good example of why I'd like to see economists put numbers on things. This is of course one of the hot button issues, and it divides both Dems and Reps internally. It also of course gives changes your culture, and eventually makes it so your kids (or their kids) might be living in a foreign country so to speak. This bothers some people, but not others. BTW, my little town is now thought to have finally hit 50% Hispanic.
Monetary policy: I think they have done a very poor job by ignoring asset bubbles. Greenspan will deserve all the negative views that I hope accumulate for him, regarding the last 5 years. But forget the Fed, just address the question of what the inflation target should be and why. That goes more to the heart of the divide in monetary policy. Should your money be worth more over time, or less, and why so?
Free trade - This is the most clear positive, at least for the long run. But changes in trade patterns do hurt some people. Creative destruction, does involve destruction, its just that the creation outweighs it over time.
I think the USA is going to see quite a bit of the creative destruction going forward. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. |
