Bidenomics and the suffering it is causing

 What exactly is "Bidenomics" and what is wrong with it? Why is it such a miserable failure causing suffering of millions?

"Bidenomics" refers to the economic policies and strategies implemented by President Joe Biden's administration. The term encompasses a range of fiscal, monetary, and regulatory measures designed to address economic challenges, promote growth, and improve the overall well-being of Americans. Key components of Bidenomics include substantial government spending on infrastructure, social programs, and climate initiatives, as well as tax reforms aimed at increasing revenue from corporations and high-income individuals. Key Elements of Bidenomics Government Spending: Infrastructure Investment: Significant funding for roads, bridges, broadband, and other infrastructure projects aimed at modernizing the economy and creating jobs. Social Programs: Expansion of social safety nets, including child tax credits, healthcare, and education. Climate Initiatives: Investments in clean energy and measures to combat climate change. Tax Policy: Corporate Tax Increases: Raising the corporate tax rate to generate revenue for government programs. Wealth Tax: Proposals to tax high-income earners more heavily to reduce income inequality. Regulation: Labor and Employment Policies: Measures to increase wages, support unionization, and improve worker protections. Environmental Regulations: Stricter regulations on pollution and emissions to support environmental goals. From the perspective of free market laissez-faire capitalism, Bidenomics presents several challenges and notable criticisms. This economic approach, promoted by President Joe Biden's administration, is characterized by a high level of government intervention in the economy, which is contrary to the principles of free market capitalism that advocate for minimal state interference. Government Spending: Infrastructure Investment: While investment in infrastructure can be beneficial, free market proponents argue that massive government spending on these projects can distort the market and create inefficiencies. The preference would be for the private sector to lead these efforts, guided by market demand and efficiency [1]. Social Programs: The expansion of social safety nets, such as child tax credits, healthcare, and education, can discourage individual productivity and self-sufficiency. From a free market perspective, this creates excessive dependence on the state and reduces incentives for people to seek employment and improve their skills [2]. Climate Initiatives: Although combating climate change is crucial, free market advocates argue that massive government investments in clean energy can be inefficient and misdirected. They prefer market forces to determine the most effective and cost-efficient solutions to these challenges [3]. Tax Policy: Corporate Tax Increases: Raising corporate taxes can disincentivize investment and innovation. Companies may pass these additional costs onto consumers through higher prices, or even relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions, potentially resulting in job losses and reduced economic opportunities [4]. Wealth Tax: Higher taxes on high-income individuals can reduce incentives for investment and entrepreneurship, which are fundamental for economic growth and job creation. Additionally, there are concerns about tax evasion and the relocation of capital to countries with more favorable tax regimes [5]. Regulation: Labor and Employment Policies: Measures to increase wages, support unionization, and improve worker protections can increase operational costs for businesses. This could result in higher prices for consumers and lower profitability for companies, which in turn could affect investment and economic growth [6]. Environmental Regulations: Strict regulations on pollution and emissions can impose significant costs on businesses, particularly energy-intensive industries. This could limit their competitiveness in the global market and pass the costs onto consumers [6]. Criticisms and Perceived Failures: Critics of Bidenomics argue that these policies have led to several economic problems: Inflation: Excessive government spending has been pointed out as a factor contributing to inflation, increasing the cost of goods and services and reducing consumers' purchasing power [4]. National Debt Increase: The increase in government spending has significantly raised the national debt, generating concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability and the potential burden on future generations [5]. Impact on Investment and Innovation: Higher taxes and additional regulations can disincentivize investment and innovation, which are crucial for economic growth. Companies may be less likely to expand or invest in new technologies under a stricter fiscal and regulatory regime [4][5].

In conclusion, from the laissez-faire and free market perspective, Bidenomics is seen as an approach that overly relies on government intervention, which can generate inefficiencies and unintended negative consequences for the economy. The preference would be for a freer economy, where market forces determine economic outcomes without state interference [1][2][3][4][5][6].

Sources: 1 The Birth of Plenty by William J. Bernstein 2 Capitalism by George Reisman 3 Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Scholar's Edition, by Murray Rothbard 4 The DIM Hypothesis by Leonard Peikoff 5 Human Action, Third Revised Edition by Ludwig Von Mises 6 Marxism/socialism, a sociopathic philosophy, conceived in gross error and ignorance, culminating in economic chaos, enslavement, terror, and mass murder by George Reisman

Empirical Data on Key Criticisms of Bidenomics

Inflation and Government Spending: Study by the Federal Reserve (2022): A report from the Federal Reserve noted that increased government spending, especially through stimulus packages, can contribute to short-term inflationary pressures. This is due to heightened demand outpacing supply capabilities, leading to price increases. However, the report also highlighted that these effects are often temporary and can be managed with appropriate monetary policies (Federal Reserve, 2022). Empirical Evidence: Inflation rates did see a significant rise in 2021 and 2022, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reaching levels not seen in decades. Critics argue this was partly due to the substantial fiscal stimulus provided by the Biden administration. However, it’s important to note that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains, which also significantly impacted inflation. National Debt Increase: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Reports: The CBO has reported that the national debt has increased significantly due to pandemic relief efforts initiated both by the Trump and Biden administrations. The CBO projects that without significant policy changes, the national debt will continue to rise, posing long-term fiscal challenges (CBO, 2021). Empirical Evidence: The national debt surpassed $28 trillion in 2021, partly due to continued fiscal stimulus and relief packages. Critics argue this will burden future generations with high debt repayments and potentially higher taxes. Impact on Investment and Innovation: Tax Policy Center Analysis (2021): An analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicated that higher corporate taxes could reduce the after-tax return on investments, potentially leading to reduced capital investment. However, the same analysis suggested that well-targeted government spending on infrastructure and innovation could offset these effects by creating new opportunities for growth (Tax Policy Center, 2021). Empirical Evidence: Some businesses have expressed concerns over the proposed tax increases, indicating potential reductions in investment. However, the actual impact on overall economic growth and innovation is still being debated, with some sectors potentially benefiting from increased government spending on technology and infrastructure. Labor and Employment Policies: Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Studies: The EPI has shown that policies aimed at increasing wages and supporting unionization can lead to higher consumer spending and improved economic stability for workers. However, critics argue that these policies can increase operational costs for businesses (EPI, 2022). Empirical Evidence: There has been an increase in wage growth and union activities, which some businesses argue has increased their costs. However, these policies have also reduced income inequality and improved the standard of living for many workers. Environmental Regulations: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): Studies by the NBER have indicated that stricter environmental regulations can lead to short-term increases in costs for businesses, particularly in energy-intensive industries. However, these regulations also drive innovation in green technologies and can lead to long-term economic benefits through sustainable practices (NBER, 2021). Empirical Evidence: Some industries have reported increased compliance costs due to new environmental regulations. Nevertheless, there is also evidence of growing investments in renewable energy and sustainable technologies, which could provide long-term economic and environmental benefits. Summary and Conclusion Critics of Bidenomics argue that the administration’s policies have led to several economic issues such as inflation, increased national debt, reduced investment incentives, and higher operational costs for businesses. Empirical evidence supports some of these claims, particularly regarding inflation and national debt increases. Key Points: Inflation: Empirical data shows a rise in inflation, partly due to increased government spending, but also significantly influenced by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. National Debt: The national debt has increased, raising concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability. Investment: Higher corporate taxes could potentially reduce investment, though increased government spending on infrastructure may offset some negative effects. Labor Costs: Increased wages and support for unions have raised operational costs for businesses but have also contributed to reducing income inequality. Environmental Regulations: These have led to higher costs for some industries but are also promoting innovation in sustainable technologies.