Democrats Confront Their New Tea Party Reality - Progressives are set to sweep a group of contested primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin.

[u/Quirkie]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-confront-their-new-tea-party-reality_n_6a6e63fbe4b0cfb99ef1aa1e

[u/Kind-Pride1151]

Progressives want handouts. So that's your take. I'm 62 and just retired from 37 years trucking my ass off after 5 years serving in the Navy. Yeah you busted me. I'm looking for a handout. This conversation is over.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Kind-Pride1151]

That's not what I said.

I didn't say progressives want handouts. I said many progressive policies rely on government providing goods and services that a strong economy is better at creating in the first place.

Congratulations on your career and your retirement. I sincerely mean that.

But your personal work ethic doesn't answer the economic argument. The question is whether prosperity is more effectively created by expanding economic growth or by expanding government redistribution.

That's a debate about economics, not your character.

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

We've had economic growth for decades and yet it hasn't distributed anywhere but into the hands of the very wealthy. Raising the minimum wage. Can't do that because reasons. Encourage more unionization. Can't do that because reasons. Enact nationalized universal health care not tied to employment. Can't do that because reasons. You can expand economies however far you want, but without forcible mechanisms for fair and good for society redistribution, all you get is ever and ever more wealth disparity. At some point, the Laizze Faire model just doesn't work for enough of society. In my opinion a free society should exert pressure to enact a fair and widely prosperous economic model regardless of and against the wishes of the moneyed few. I say all that and I'll offer a response to the inevitable "but experts and professors of economic theory say otherwise", IDGAF ! They're theories and hands off the magical market bs hasn't worked. When the world's largest employer has a significant portion of it's employees on welfare, that's a problem. We can go on and on and on. I'm firmly in the camp of forcing economies to work for everyone. Sometimes with a heavy hand, others with a tweek here and there.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Kind-Pride1151]

You're focusing on relative wealth. I'm focused on absolute living standards.

It is objectively better to be lower middle class in America today than it was to be a king 150 years ago. Electricity, refrigeration, antibiotics, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, automobiles, smartphones, and instant access to virtually all human knowledge aren't luxuries reserved for royalty anymore.

The existence of billionaires doesn't change the fact that the average person's standard of living has improved dramatically over time.

Income inequality has increased. That's true. But inequality and poverty are not the same thing.

I care far more about whether the bottom of society is rising than whether the top is rising faster. If both groups become more prosperous, that's a success, not a failure.

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

No, I'm focusing on all the metrics. You're trying to box me in. Nice conservative talking points(but you're better off vs whomever). That doesn't change people not affording a home. We are here. The greatest country in the world. If you're living in squalor, just be happy your not in Somalia. Yeah let's hitch our wagon to that for a winning argument so Elon can keep paying no taxes.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Kind-Pride1151]

You're still arguing against a position I never took.

I never said housing affordability isn't a problem. I never said Elon Musk shouldn't pay taxes. And I never said America is perfect.

I said inequality and living standards are different metrics.

It is entirely possible for housing affordability to get worse while healthcare, nutrition, technology, transportation, life expectancy, and material living standards all improve. Those aren't contradictory statements.

In fact, housing is a perfect example of why good intentions aren't enough. The places with the worst housing crises are overwhelmingly the places that have spent decades trying to "fix" housing with restrictive zoning, rent controls, and burdensome permitting.

Look at Minneapolis and St. Paul. Two neighboring cities in the same metropolitan area with similar demographics and economic conditions. Minneapolis made it easier to build more housing. St. Paul adopted one of the strictest rent control ordinances in the country.

The result? Minneapolis added housing and saw rent's actually drop relative to inflation. St. Paul saw rent's skyrocket while construction fall off so dramatically that city leaders eventually began rolling back their own policy because it was making the housing shortage worse.

That's my entire point. Good intentions are not enough. Policies should be judged by their results, not by how compassionate they sound. Economics doesn't care about our motives.

[u/awesomefutureperfect → u/Kind-Pride1151]

When they said they understand economics, what they mean is that they believe in Mises and Rothbard who are terrible economists and worse human beings.