potential U.S. president most likely to finesse 1970s economics.

Dancing Fool

Loss of manufacturing jobs + energy shocks. A double whammy we didn’t handle well.

And perhaps much like a drought,

the fact that the erosion of the American middle-class was a slow-motion crisis, no, we were not exactly at our best.
 
Last edited:

peeter

The most realistic situation I could see without being overly idealistic would be if Nixon didn’t do Watergate and after winning the 1972 election he decided to rip the bandage off inflation and jack up interest rates in 1973 but pair it with a stimulus bill focused on job creation and energy expansion, but even that is being very wish fulfillment on my end
 
THE KINGFISH

THE KINGFISH

peeter said:
The most realistic situation I could see without being overly idealistic would be if Nixon didn’t do Watergate and after winning the 1972 election he decided to rip the bandage off inflation and jack up interest rates in 1973 but pair it with a stimulus bill focused on job creation and energy expansion, but even that is being very wish fulfillment on my end
Click to expand...
I’ve heard some people pitch that if Robert F. Kennedy wasn’t shot but still lost to Nixon, it would lower Nixon’s paranoia much that it butterflies the scandal, But don’t quote me on that.
 

Dancing Fool

peeter said:
if Nixon didn’t do Watergate and after winning the 1972 election he decided to rip the bandage off inflation and jack up interest rates in 1973 but pair it with a stimulus bill
Click to expand...
This could be done. I’m not sure this it’s that much wishful thinking.

It took me a long time to wrap my mind around the fact that during a time of inflation, you periodically bump up interest rates ? ! ?

Sounds counter-intuitive. But yes — higher interest rates slows business investment and slows the overall economy. And can allow time for inflation to come back down. And if you can do this through a series of “bumps” or steps — like every month or every quarter — hopefully, you can allow high inflation to settle without too much of a recession. They call this a “soft landing.”

* a low inflation-rate of 2 to 3% is healthy for an economy
 
Last edited:

peeter

Dancing Fool said:
This could be done. I’m not sure this it’s that much wishful thinking.

It took me a long time to wrap my mind around the fact that during a time of inflation, you periodically bump up interest rates ? ! ?

Sounds counter-intuitive. But yes — higher interest rates slows business investment and slows the overall economy. And can allow time for inflation to come back down. And if you can do this through a series of “bumps or steps” — like every month or every quarter — hopefully, you can allow high inflation to settle without too much of a recession. They call this a “soft landing.”

* a low inflation rate of 2 to 3% is healthy for an economy
Click to expand...
It’s more that neither conservatives or liberals in congress would cooperate for political purposes. Nixon would get attacked heavily from both his left and right.
 
Aisha Clan-Clan

Aisha Clan-Clan

Anyone but Nixon. Nixon was squishy moderate in ways that uh wouldn't work.

Either well to the right(avoids stagflation vy spending less) or redistributionist/"left" wpould work.
 

Comte de Geneve

The unfettered Nixon was a policy activist and was still part of the New Deal ecumene, witness the Wage and Price controls from 71 and the abandonment of the Bretton Woods Gold Standard. He would have proposed activist solutions as opposed to Ford and his WIN buttons. Also at that time bi-partisanship was at a high so an unfettered Nixon would work with anybody to get his ideas through. Whether they would work or not, IDK, but he was not known as Idle Dick, or Dick the Do-Nothing.
 
Aisha Clan-Clan

Aisha Clan-Clan

Johnson getting UHC through in 65 would help by reducing the trade deficit bc of improving american economic competitiveness since business wouldn't be having to de facto pay 2x what it costs to hire americans vs first worlders.
 

Dancing Fool

Aisha Clan-Clan said:
Johnson getting UHC through in 65
Click to expand...
And/or we could go with Nixon’s proposals from the early 1970s. Basically mandating employer coverage for full-time. And for part-time and others, Medicare buy-in with subsidies based on income, a lot like Obamacare.

However,

Nixon’s plan DOES NOT free GM, Ford, and Chrysler from legacy costs for retired workers.

More universal coverage might.

Maybe like President Johnson’s plan in ‘65. So yes, I’m coming around! :)
 
Aisha Clan-Clan

Aisha Clan-Clan

The POD is "US finesses 1970s" not "US autoworkers are sustainable" so...

You'd need to have national healthcare implemented before 1950/the peace of detroit to get the auto companies on a more sustainable basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top