As we endure the blizzard of political promises that buffet us from the right and the left in this election season, I thought I'd resurrect my Squeeze-the-Balloon Theory, which can be compared to the old spiritual "
Dem Bones." Stripped of all the diagrams and verbiage, the fundamental point is that
If you listen to any political speeches or read what the parties dare to put into print*, you'll find that they are simply collections of discrete promises. We will lower taxes (on the rich), raise taxes (on the rich), build factories (or bring them back from overseas), create jobs, rebuild infrastructure, build a wall, get rid of Obamacare (or improve it), round up and deport those in the country illegally, beat cancer, support Israel or the Palestinians (or not), support Ukraine against Russia (or not), impose the "Christian" version of sharia law, go to Mars, fight climate change (or forbid any mention thereof), etc, etc, etc. If you're on the far right, those promises are presented in capital letters with multiple exclamation points.
What all these promises, and the actions needed to fulfill them, have in common is that each one is presented in a vacuum, without consideration of how it relates to all the others. When you squeeze a partially-inflated balloon in one place, it bulges out in another ...
... thus, my "Squeeze the Balloon" look at political and economic promises.
Consider this simplified example:
Workers demand higher wages, consumers demand lower prices, manufacturers demand maximum profits, and stockholders demand maximum return on their investment.
So ...
1. In order to keep profits and shareholder return high and prices low, manufacturers move their production to other countries where labor is cheaper and cost-imposing legal and safety regulations are less onerous than in the United States.
2. As manufacturing jobs move overseas, domestic factories close and workers lose their jobs.
3. Because laid-off workers now have no income, they cannot afford to buy the products they once made, even at the lower price they originally demanded.
4. Workers without steady income defer necessary medical care or fail to buy health insurance until their conditions become more difficult and expensive to treat. The medical system, straining to treat patients unable to pay for other than emergency treatment (if they can pay for that at all), compensates by raising prices for those who have insurance or can otherwise afford to pay. Medical insurance companies raise their rates, and consumers see their health care costs go up. Further, ill or injured workers aren't as productive as healthy, well-fed ones, which imposes new, less-obvious production costs on their employers.
5. Workers without jobs can't pay their mortgages, buy new homes, or afford ever-increasing rents, which leads to a homeless problem, which leads to health and public safety issues as cities cope with ever-increasing homeless populations.
6. Voters who now have no jobs, income, health care, or places to live vote for candidates who offer scapegoats and simple, one-size-fits-all solutions to their problems**.
Here's another way to look at it ...
1. Businesses insist that taxes and regulations strangle their viability and profitability.
2. Seeking campaign contributions, politicians promise to slash taxes on businesses and eliminate or not enforce health, safety, and environmental regulations.
3. Falling tax revenue*** must be made up in one of three ways: increase taxes on individuals; cut spending; or borrow money. Each of these has its own drawbacks:
3a. Increasing taxes on individuals (especially at lower income levels), exacerbates the downward pressure on their purchasing power. A corollary of this is the practice in many cities of piling taxes and fees on transient populations that don't vote there (take a look at how many taxes and fees are heaped on your next hotel bill).
3b. Cutting spending always involves reductions in programs that one constituency or another considers vital and will fight tooth and nail to maintain.
3c. Borrowing pushes the pain into the future, when loans and their attendant interest must be repaid with money that has to be raised by increasing taxes, cutting spending, or ... borrowing more money.
4. Eliminating or failing to enforce regulations leads to more workplace injuries and health issues, which lead to lower productivity and increased medical care costs. Eliminating environmental regulations leads to contaminated ground, air, and water, which leads to health problems for workers and - eventually - huge cleanup costs. A corollary to this is the failure to enforce restrictions on monopolies, which invariably lead industries to bypass market pressures and set prices at whatever level they think they can get away with.
What all this means is that . Dem bones are still connected. The balloon bulges out at one end when you squeeze the other. Every action generates a reaction†.
So ...
When you,
as Taylor Swift encourages, do your research and decide for whom you're going to vote, don't vote for simplistic, no-pain, pie-in-the-sky promises. Vote for someone who at least has an understanding of how the world works, and how everything is connected to everything else.
Hint: it ain't Der Furor.
Have a good day. Check your voting registration to make sure it's accurate and up-to-date so that no one can challenge your right to cast a ballot. And be sure to do your research and think it all through before you cast that vote. You only get one, so use it wisely.
More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
P.S. - We haven't even mentioned the question of who will spend long hours of backbreaking labor under the hot sun to pick the fruits and vegetables if all those immigrants are rounded up and deported, and how much the cost of those fruits and vegetables will go up if the pickers have to be paid real wages and provided minimum benefits. Even if you can afford them, those red hats won't provide a lot of UV protection.
B.
** See "Der Furor," although he's just the worst example.
*** You still don't believe that "trickle-down economics" bullshit, do you?
.jpg)
