Because Italy's problem is ships. NGO's use big ships to pick up the migrants in their small and leaky boats and bring them to Europe.
So friends of Erdogan sell those poor people leaky boats that can only make it half way.
To travel from Libya and Turkey by land you either have to take your chances on the Turk/Greek border or move through Ukraine.
This will surely help with the approval ratings
https://twitter.com/wallstmemes/status/1571887396869865474
Another day, another Democratic "solution". And that solution of course is ignoring the problem because haha, there is no problem. As much as I hate him I really should have voted Trump. We are in the hands of a geriatric with dementia whose administration is staffed with Twitter addled fa**ots. Far from the centrist he campaigned on.
The Fed is run by a fiscally conservative Republican. Increasing rates is exactly what he would do in a Republican admin.
Granted, I'm not knowledgeable about economy. I'm not an expert. All I know and see is that the President and Democrats are pretending it's not a problem, which I know a Republican admin wouldn't do because that's what they're strong on.
Joe Biden is not the World Economic Arbiter. Every nation of Europe has above a ~9% threshhold inflation rate, with energy averaging 40%, and non-energy industrial goods increasing to 7%+. You can read the fed monetary reports to understand what's to be done: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases.htm -- these problems are global and require a global amelioration effort. Everyone has the same solution for the same problem -- it just takes time. It'll happen. Markets are still expected to drop at the expectation of rate increases, but there's nothing you can do about it. There's a general consensus among economists that forecasts 0+ GDP growth in the fourth quarter and ~1% growth next year, down about half a percentage point from expectations -- that's what this stuff is about. We're dealing with fractions of a percentage point and slow changes over years. This is just the way it is. Playing the blame game with partisan politics doesn't make any sense. It's not like one party knows what to do and the other doesn't -- the externalities of the world are dealt with the same way by both. Buy treasuries if you're feeling the pain -- the yields are making record gains. Brace and wait out the lows. Short-term pain. We're all in this together - stop being tribal shitheads.
I'm not being tribal. I give both parties shit. It doesn't change the fact that Democratic Party messaging on inflation is God awful and proves their streak for elitist ivory tower horse shit. It takes their problems and make them even more unlikable.
Joe Biden is not the World Economic Arbiter. Every nation of Europe has above a ~9% threshhold inflation rate, with energy averaging 40%, and non-energy industrial goods increasing to 7%+. You can read the fed monetary reports to understand what's to be done: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases.htm -- these problems are global and require a global amelioration effort. Everyone has the same solution for the same problem -- it just takes time. It'll happen. Markets are still expected to drop at the expectation of rate increases, but there's nothing you can do about it. There's a general consensus among economists that forecasts 0+ GDP growth in the fourth quarter and ~1% growth next year, down about half a percentage point from expectations -- that's what this stuff is about. We're dealing with fractions of a percentage point and slow changes over years. This is just the way it is. Playing the blame game with partisan politics doesn't make any sense. It's not like one party knows what to do and the other doesn't -- the externalities of the world are dealt with the same way by both. Buy treasuries if you're feeling the pain -- the yields are making record gains. Brace and wait out the lows. Short-term pain. We're all in this together - stop being tribal shitheads.
I'm not being tribal. I give both parties shit. It doesn't change the fact that Democratic Party messaging on inflation is God awful and proves their streak for elitist ivory tower horse shit. It takes their problems and make them even more unlikable.
Deep breaths, Propagandhim. Deep breaths.
There's no such thing as a government that's not strong on the economy, which is why every Central Bank is independently run and apolitical. We split the atom 100 years ago, you don't think we're able to figure out the equation that determines what grows the economy and what doesn't? Everyone subscribes to the same model - keep inflation low while allowing businesses to take out the maximum amount of money to grow sectors of the economy. Allow capital to have inherent growth to incentivize money-on-hand and debt reduction. Keep income inequality as tight as possible to soak up the labor curve and avoid political distress. Invest in human capital by creating a social security net while incentivizing risk and wealth creation. As simplistic as this chart is, it really does represent the truth: average GDP growth over Republican/Democratic administrations norms across global capital booms.
What do you take away from this chart? Do you think Kennedy and Bill Clinton's administration specifically figured out what grew an economy, and the subsequent administrations threw out that conventional wisdom? The economy grew 30 million jobs in 8 years and 35% gdp growth under Clinton. We can see a very simple causal link between investment in the middle class that reduced unemployment -- but then why doesn't everyone just invest in the middle class?
Clinton is a perfect microcosm on why thinking about political parties during economic boons is short-sighted. During Clinton's tenure, the strength of the labor market was unprecedented, median household income in real dollars reached a peak that we still haven't recovered from, and the poverty rate reached an all-time low which we also haven't recovered from. Let's look back at the 70's: Reagan and the Fed were tasked and succeeded in taming inflation with a brief recession in '82. You might've heard about 'trickle down' - His supply-side policies focused on tax-cuts from the top and rolling back Johnson's welfare programs that were an albatross in the 70s inflationary economy. The market crashes in 1987 and inflation skyrockets in the 1990s, which prompted interest rate hikes and a new recession in the Bush years. When Clinton took over, he reversed the budget deficits that Reagan created, which allowed the new Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, enough room to keep interest rates low, which encouraged unemployment to fall. When interest rates fall, the amount of private sector savings that goes into buying federal debt reduces, instead it increases the amount of private sector investment. So unemployment kept falling and private business investment soared. Increased private investment increased labor productivity, combined with labor scarcity, and wages were pushed up. Median incomes rose, and poverty fell. This created deficit reduction. Great. But deficit reduction isn't always the right economic strategy for the time - it was for this circumstance. A low interest rate, specifically in the 90s, was especially and specifically effective at deficit reduction. Republicans say that the credit truly belongs to Ronald Reagan, because his supply-side economics created a great wave of entrepreneurial-technological innovation that transformed and restructured the economy - he engendered a kind of fortunate circumstance that allowed the US to take advantage of the serendipity of global phenomena like the internet and easy communication and set up for cheap globalized manufacturing, which resulted in a lot of prosperity that continued. Democrats point to Clinton's policies of deficit reduction. The truth is that they're both right - it's a causal chain of events from multiple administrations. Clinton raised marginal tax rates on the highest-income Americans -- Reaganite supply-siders thought that was economically disastrous and it was uniformly opposed by Republicans, but as we know now the economy was much more prosperous after this than it was during the years Reagan was actually in office and taxes were lower. But whose to argue that Reagan's investments in the private sector didn't enabled this? What many Republicans make of Clinton's tenure is that he was simply fortunate in his timing with insane stock valuations because of burgeoning global phenomenon like the internet, and clearly the high prices lifted the economy for anyone invested in the markets. It was called "The Clinton bubble", where the market was fueled by aggressive financial deregulatory policies from Clinton and Greenspan -- huge sums of cash from IPO underwriting that investment banks were engaged in persuaded the administration to open up the market to new competition from commercial banks. So commercial banks are lending out more money to a booming middle class, thanks to market surges. It's capitalism, money begets more money for bursts of time. But for the past 10 years prior to this bursting era, the United States and other rich European countries suffered from a shortfall in aggregate demand (aggregate demand is the measure of total demand for goods and services) - a situation in which even very low interest rates do not induce either full employment or inflation. So Reagan could not have employed this strategy of cutting rates to any success until those market surges, but he contributed to those market surges. It simply does not make sense to put tons of stock in economic policy from the lens of short-term partisan politics. Normally during interest rate cuts fears about inflation curbs growth. But Clinton's policies dealt with fears through trade agreements and extra participation from a workforce that was incentivized by certain social security policies, and things like childcare investment (thanks to a booming global economy and revolutions in economic communication, transfer, and travel of globalization). A good economy begets good results -- and allowed Clinton to tackle the Reagan-era structural deficit. What's the takeaway from this? That Keynesian (keynesians economics is a belief that the government can stabilize the economy with countercyclical fiscal policy - like lowering taxes to stimulate aggregate demand) economics that handle budget deficit is the key to economic growth, right? That Reagan should not have cut taxes to create a large structural budget deficit and Clinton's push for a deficit reduction is the key? Actually, no. Over the past 15 years, it's been the complete opposite. Interest rates and inflation stayed low during the economy of the early to mid aughts, as George W. Bush brought budget deficits back (the deficits were created by fiscal stimulus) and he cited the Clinton surplus as evidence that taxes were too high, which drove the U.S. budget into the red. When Obama took over, he called deficit reduction, " balanced budget fetishism" during the Global Financial Crisis, because global factors out of his control wouldn't allow him to get a handle on it -- much of economic policy is a non-partisan group asking themselves "What options do we have?" not, "What would this Democrat/Republican administration want?" Because they don't control the major factors of the economy -- which is why the same problems remain extant over many years and exist globally. When the Asian financial crisis hit in the late 90s, it was devastating to east asian and south-east asian markets -- everyone thought that devastation would transfer to the US, but the result was actually very minimal. Their currency collapsed so our exports to them fell sharply, right? Well most U.S. industries experienced export decline
to Asia, but the decline in export demand had no noticeable impact. And for the most part, we learned that imports from Asia do not compete directly with U.S. production. Therefore, an appreciation in the dollar with respect to Asian currencies leads to gains in consumption with little or no domestic pain. Creating an economy that transactionally behaves like this with Asia is a great situation right? Thanks to the experience of the 90s it was fantastic. Thanks to the experience of 2022, it's fucking terrible. Supply chain issues and an energy crisis compound and beget more problems. What specific administration is responsible for engendering this causal chain of events? Who set up the economy to function like this? 90% of it is outside an administration of 4-8 years' control and periphery of credit/blame.
All of this wall of text is already well understood by every government on earth -- that's fiscal policy is complex and inherited from causal factors over long periods of time and global. This is why every Central Bank in every advanced economy is insulated from short-term political pressures by being given a degree of autonomy outside of the legislature. Otherwise, they'd do things like enacting excessive expansionary monetary policy to lower unemployment in the short term, to fuck over the next administration, and say "see? look what these dipshits did!" There isn't one side that cares more or even knows more about fixing the economy than the other, nobody is that prescient. All the information we have is being utilized in the exact way as intended per the short window of time.
