Where did those 15 million extra votes for Biden/Harris in 2020 come from?
And why didnt Harris get those votes in 2024?
Posted on 11/09/2024 1:40:01 PM PST by econjack
I'm a retired economics professor who voted against Harris, mainly because of her economic policies. For example, Harris (and virtually all Democrats) rally around the statement: “The rich should pay their fair share!” I have a number of problems with this statement when it is a basis for government economic policy.
For example, consider her statement that the rich don't pay their fair share. First, who gets to determine “a fair share”? Currently, the top 10 percent of income earners (i.e., the “rich”) paid 73.7% of all taxes collected by the IRS. Wage earners with $550,000 or more (the top 1%) paid 42.3% of all income taxes. The lowest 50% of wage earners ($43,600 or less) paid only 2.3% of the tax total. In other words, the rich pay income taxes at a rate that is more than 35 higher than the average worker. How is that “fair”? Who are the entrepreneurs who invest in the economy and generate economic growth which creates jobs? I don't think it's the “poor” people.
Harris also said she would raise taxes on the “greedy” corporations from 21% to 28%. Where does Harris think corporate money comes from? It comes from the American consumer. In most cases, the tax increase will mean higher prices to consumers as the company tries to pass the tax on to the consumer. The consumer loses via higher prices and the corporation loses by the increased taxes. The only winner is the government who collects the tax. Personally, I'd rather see the corporation keep the money to grow the business, create new jobs, and promote economic growth than the government use some part of it to fund a war in Ukraine or buy $600 hammers. I trust the corporations to spend the money more wisely than the government.
Another bothersome statement for me is that Harris is going to go after grocery stores for “price gouging”. Again, who gets to define what price gouging is? Clearly, that's what Harris wants the power to be able to define. I find it odd that she singled out one of the least profitable sectors in the US economy to serve up as one that engages in price gouging. The typical return for most grocery chains is 1-3%. That's price gouging to Harris. Really? Most grocery chains could make larger returns if they sold their chains and put the money into a saving account. If they did, not only would they make more profit, they wouldn't have to contend with those pesky people known as employees. Such policy statements tells me Harris doesn't understand economics, especially relative to the supply chain. What's worse, this suggests her economic policy advisors don't understand economics, either.
In a nutshell, what bothers me about almost all Democrat economic policies is that they are based on a zero sum result. That is, the only way to make one group economically better off (e.g., consumers), is to take it away from a different group (e.g., producers). The net gain is zero. An example will help illustrate the difference.
In 1972, George McGovern was the Democrat nominee for President. In an effort to court the union vote, McGovern met with Caesar Chevez, the leader of the lettuce pickers union. (See: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1972-press-photo-cesar-chavez-george-4645282248.) After the meeting, McGovern said he would boycott the lettuce growers and not eat another salad until the workers wage demands were met. This meeting was pointed out to me by a colleague who taught in the Sociology department at a university where I taught. (She was a very liberal professor and would take any opportunity to rattle my conservative cage.) You don't need fancy math or graphs to see where this went wrong...just common sense. The conversation went like this:
Her: “McGovern has pledged not to eat another salad until the lettuce pickers get a wage increase!” Me: “Lois, that's exactly the wrong thing to do if you want them to get a wage increase.” Her: “Once again, you're a crazy conservative.” Me: “Hear me out. Right now there's probably 10,000 acres of lettuce to be picked. It's either picked soon or it rots in the field, right?” Her: “Exactly!” Me: “If the boycott is successful, what will happen to the demand for lettuce and its price?” Her: “Demand will decrease and the price will fall. That's the point of a boycott.” Me: “OK, and what will happen to the farmers' income?” Her: “It will fall. Again, that's the point!” Me: “And what does that do to the farmers' ability to give a wage increase?” Her: [crickets] Me: “Consider this: What if McGovern had said he was going to eat 5 salads a day and encouraged everyone else to do the same? What would happen to demand?” Her: “It would go up.” Me: “And since the supply of lettuce on those 10,000 acres is fixed for now, what would happen to price?” Her: “It would go up.” Me: “And what would happen to the farmers' ability to give a wage increase?” Her: “It would go up.” Me: “And what would happen to the cost to the farmers on NOT giving a wage increase?” Her: [Shouting at me] “That may be, but I don't believe it!” ...at which point she would spin on her heel and storm out of my office. Poor Lois. She never did learn that facts don't care how you feel about things.
The real lesson to learn here is that it is much easier to promote a policy that is a win for both sides rather than a zero sum policy. The boycott is a zero sum policy where workers gain, but the farmer loses. The opposite policy sees the farmer sell his lettuce at a higher price and the workers get a wage increase. True, the price of lettuce costs the consumer more, but, taken individually, it's small compared to the gains by the farmer and the worker. By the way, McGovern ended up with 5 electoral votes.
People overlook how important economic growth is to the well-being of the economic system. Suppose I'm rich (i.e., 90% of the “economic pie”) and you're poor (i.e., only 10% of the pie). The Harris approach is to take some part of my slice and give it to you. Your gain is my loss—a zero sum game. However, suppose Harris gives the rich a tax cut and the rich see this as a good sign and take those extra dollars and invest them. Let's further assume that the new investment increases the SIZE of the pie by 10%. Note: this means we both have an increase in our income even though our slices remain the same size! This is a win-win for both income groups. Lots of people hate Bezos because he so rich. However, they forget that in the early years, rather than spend the money on himself, Bezos plowed the funds back into the firm and grew it to the point where he now provides food, clothing, and shelter for over 250,000 people. Rick people are not automatically bad people.
Before you judge empty slogans like “They don't pay their fair share” or “Grocery stores are price gouging”, take a moment and think through what's really being said. If politicians bitch about “unfair taxes”, ask yourself this: “Who wrote the IRS tax code?” Harris had almost 4 years to work on the very problems she's complaining about, why didn't she work to promote solutions for any of them?
“Most grocery chains could make larger returns if they sold their chains and put the money into a saving account”
I don’t think that’s the way it is.
My understanding is that the 1-3% is based on sales NOT on assets/investments.
” 50% of the taxpayers pay NO TAX AT ALL.”
The Earned Income Credit can result in a negative Income Tax.
Nice to read a well reasoned vanity.
Her blather about price gouging was based on - nothing. She never gave any evidence that gouging was occurring and that consumer price increases wee anything other than inflation produced by Biden-Harris economic policy.
As an economist, I’d be interested in your take on some of Trump’s remarks about shifting some of the burden of paying for the federal government from income taxes to tariffs.
“Where Harris Went Wrong”
Uh.....she was born! Case closed!
It seems, republicans are only concerned about the costs of corporate financials without the social and cultural rot sent downstream from those entities.
Those woke, multi national corporations seem to have cornered the market on republican water carriers. Most populist have gotten tired of the constant 'rewarding' of such woke multinationals, while those companies have attacked conservative society in America and their morals. Those multinationals have sold out to communist china and other outlets of social thought.
America was never going to elect her. She’s 5’3”, has no record outside government welfare, gave blowjobs to Willie Brown to get her government jobs, never won a single vote in the primaries, has no children because she spent too much time riding the penis merry-go-round, and is a straight up communist race hustler. Lied about Biden, lied about the border. Sex change pervert advocate.
Never had a chance despite all the propaganda.
They forget what tequila protection under the law means. All politicians need to read the constitution and pass a test before being able to take an oath of office.
Excellent post!
I learned years ago there is no such thing as “fair”. It’s all a matter of opinion.
“...tequila protection under the law...”
-
I need me some of that!
Where did those 15 million extra votes for Biden/Harris in 2020 come from?
And why didnt Harris get those votes in 2024?
She is such a complete loser on every level. I think “she went wrong” by being born.
For sure
She was breathing.
God has already chosen Trump. There was no way in this world that Harris would win.
Yep, this should be added to the list of mistakes.
It is, but the profit from the sale of the assets would yield better returns from a savings account. Investment to an economist is not the exchange of assets, like a stock sale. That’s simply trading paper assets. Instead, investment is meant to be the purchase of capital goods to expand production.
I’m not a big fan of tariffs. Also, these appear to be protective tariffs aimed at specific industries (e.g., Chinese EV sales). I would rather see a Flat Tax with rates fixed at 17% on income (Milton Friedman’s suggested rate) and 15% on corporations (again, Friedman). That low rate would cause domestic producers to produce in the US rather than setting up plants outside the US. It would also encourage foreign investments to produce in the US as well. Those expanding or new producers would generate more sources for collecting corporate taxes. Also, the lower tax would encourage lower prices which benefit consumers.
Thanks..especially since it came from the Equation of Exchange!!
Against them, Trump put together a campaign with a potent narrative, a critique of his opposition, and a winning political coalition that won and is poised to redefine American politics. Yes, Harris lost, but she might well have won against a conventional Republican like DeSantis. As it was, Trump beat Harris and broke the modern Democratic party in the process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.