I’m not trying to start an argument; just looking for a simple answer to a simple question.
The economy. Successful businesses providing goods and services people want.
Same as the Right, I would guess.
Not from tax cuts (usually). Tax cuts for profitable businesses just make the businesses more profitable. That’s fine, but does’t promote much economic growth.
I think the short answer is “from the opposite direction that the right thinks economic growth comes from.”
The main difference, in brief: Economic vitality comes from the *many *having more money, and buying more things that others are employed to produce etc., not from the few who will just bank extra money somewhere rather than trickle it down in any detectable way.
The sign of a healthy economy isn’t a bunch of rich people; it’s a really big bunch of middle class people. Designing your tax code (or your political system) so money moves from the middle class to the wealthy is bad for your overall economy.
I would agree with this. Economic growth comes from money moving around the system, being used to buy products and services which are made by companies that provide salaries that people use to buy products and services.
New ideas and innovations are also very necessary in providing economic growth. Some of these new ideas will come from individual entrepreneurs, some come from teams at larger companies, and some do come from basic research at universities and public institutions. None of these have a lock on new ideas or innovations.
Interestingly, not many on the left think that economic growth comes from rainbows and unicorn farts; this seems to be false interpretation of their thinking, but one I have heard expressed by some.
Productivity gains enabled through an educated and socially mobile middle class and an expanded consumer base via immigration.
It comes from the right. Where else?
But if one of the Leftwing Units would like to step forward and speak for the collective, that would be great.
I think from the middle class having enough cash to make purchases above and beyond subsistence. If the middle class gets any additional money, whether by tax cuts or wage increases, they spend it. This spending increases the need for manufacturing of the things the middle class wants. This increased manufacturing employs more workers who in turn spend their wages, further increasing need for production. The right wing thinks that if we just throw money at billionaires, they’ll create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. But if the middle class’ income doesn’t go up, there will be no increased demand.
This is a perfect answer and succinct.
Consumer economy. Consumers no got money, no economy. Duh.
The economy historically grows faster with democrats in office.
Can you back that up with a cite? How far back? I recognize today’s Republican Party is not the one of the past but they had a pretty good record early through TR. If you say post Wilson then it seems more likely.
By adding value into the system. This requires innovation. Which is why the barrier to entry needs to remain low, so that one new idea from someone can come in and add value. And a low barrier to entry requires a lot of money moving around, not stuck with some 1%.
It’s the same reason any sort of monopoly is bad, and why we support government intervention to prevent them. They naturally come up in capitalism. The market can only correct if it is moving. It can only spread the value of what is newly added if it is moving and not getting dammed up.
There can be some phantom gains that will then bust later, but you can’t actually increase the value of an economy without putting something new into it. Even if that new something is just valuable due to its novelty.
From people being able to buy goods and services. So much so that businesses need to grow to meet demand. A good way of ensuring that is paying people a livable wage. Alternatively they grow by inventing new technologies and industries that didn’t exist before.
I’m not the typical Leftie, but I would say a healthy and educated work force, an efficient transportation system and well maintained infrastructure, and investments in innovation, science, and technology.
And this can occur when you have an excellent education system that rewards intelligence and effort no matter how much money your parents have.
Scientific and Engineering technologies do not occur if you don’t put money into creating an educated populace, and take advantage of ALL of the potential from ALL of your citizens, not just the ones with money, or the ones with legacy admittance to higher education. You can’t do this by relying on rich people; they will help themselves. This can only be done via a public system of getting the best education for the most people.
Entrepreneurship can be facilitated by making sure that people are not tied to their dead-end jobs via an employer-based healthcare system. If healthcare is not tied to employment, then people will feel more able to take the risk to go out on their own and develop the new idea, the new product, the new business. This will lead to economic growth - small businesses are a huge driver of employment and the economy, and they need to be encouraged. Universal Healthcare could be a big help in this area.
Lets stick with post WWII. TR was economically to the left of the democratic party today.
PDF: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20140913
OK, fair enough. That’s why I asked about the time period. Today’s party is not even the party of Ike, Nixon & Ford, never mind Teddy.
This. Plus, in today’s world, fair and positive international trade relations. International relations need to be based upon a win-win negotiation strategy. Other nations who try to play the zero-sum game should be cut off until they reach a more cooperative stance. Unfortunately, the zero-sum arse hole at the moment is ours.