Same applies to all economic conditions, established standards.
Except for apparently "trickle-down" economics. Since I've yet to see any actual quantitative report that it actually did anything but allowed for huge stock buybacks.
The only difference is the govt. is spreading the money generating public debt
Which they then suggest offsetting by increasing tax rates on the wealthy. As opposed to cutting taxes and suggesting it'll be offset by the Chimera of increased economic activity generated by higher wages.
with among other things hope to generate growth.
Those other things include stuff like affordable healthcare, accessible education, and other entitlement programs. Concrete policy initiatives that have a direct benefit for the majority of Americans. Growth is not a primary function. Helping people
directly is.
. Again, it's up and down, down causes up, back down again etc. etc. The idea for stimulus is exactly the same.
It is most definitely not the same, for the reasons I described.
Yes, no shit predictable. 1400 dollars for people earning x-amount of money is predictable. Getting money from the government so you can keep open your business is predictable, etc., etc.
Then why all the hiring signs?
This is so anecdotal I can't respond. Give a concrete example, please?
O'bummercare stagnated growth and raised taxes.
Prove it. And by the way, it also insured millions of people who weren't before. Economic growth is only one parameter for measuring the actual health of a society, and I would argue not the best one. Since a lot of economic growth is concentrated in a small portion of the populace. Which is of course the point.
sk me how I know, govt. buildings, ask me how I know, and govt. infrastructure where a days work took weeks ask me how I know, and giant steel animals they call art ask me how I know.
Word salad.
Reflecting on the OP, since trickle down is just a philosophy then it's safe to say you're more likely to receive a raise if the govt. takes more money.
Nope, you are simply more likely to not need raises in order to pay for things like healthcare or sending your kid to college.
It's why I said you are conflating.
Say goodbye to USA military force those countries depend on yo cover their ass.
The US spends about 3 percent of its GDP on the military. It however spends about 17 percent on its
for-profit healthcare system. Germany, a Social Democracy, spends 11.5 percent on healthcare, and 1.2 on its military. Meaning that Germany could spend the same amount on its military add it to its healthcare system, (just one entitlement) program, and still have spend less of its GDP than the US does on its
for-profit healthcare system alone.
Military Spending By Country 2021 Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
)I picked Germany because they were represented prominently in both tables.)