My ideology combines ideas and theories from the left and the right to craft the blueprints for a perfect society. It combines supply-side economics with socialist policies to build a super-state with a long term competitive advantage. I'd argue that my political philosophy can be summarized as a Traditionalist Neo-Mercantilist Monarchist. This thread will focus on the economics side of it.
ECONOMICS:
I am a big believer in Chicago School of Economics. Although most proponents of these theories tend to support very low taxes, I believe many miss the big picture. The real reason Supply Side Economics works (often called Trickle Down) is because the private sector is a much better allocator of resources than public bureaus, so if we leave more capital in the hands of private enterprise rather than in government, resources will be used more efficiently. A country can become richer by shrinking the government, lowering taxes, and letting the free market rather than the state dictate capital allotment.
There is one fundamental flaw in this theory, a tax cut without a spending cut is not a real tax cut, you're replacing one form of tax for another. If the government is spending $500bn, and taxing $500bn, you have a balanced budget, if taxes are cut so the government is only collecting $400bn, it still has to make up for that extra $100bn somehow, whether through borrowing or money-printing. Both alternatives are actually far more destructive for a society than simply taxing an extra $100bn. Borrowing $100bn is pulling capital away from capital markets, where it otherwise would be invested in private enterprise, printing money erodes trust and monetary stability. If the government is to spend $500bn, it should tax $500bn. A tax cut leads to economic growth if and only if it is bet with an equal cut in SPENDING. Spending is the independent variable here, not the taxes. When governments run deficits, they crowd out the private sector, siphoning bank capital that othewise would be invested in productive endeavours and reallocating it to unproductive purposes. Not only this but the government builds up a debt, burdening its future self with mandatory interest payments.
The same is also true in reverse, when government revenues are higher than expenses, they're running a budget surplus. The surplus capital is used to repay debt, putting capital back in the capital markets (where it will be used for productive purposes). As governments repay their debts, the private sector gets an extra boost of capital, you see a reverse crowding out. This is in conjunction with the lower future interest payments the government must pay in the future. Paying off debt is both good for the economy and long term solvency.
TWIN DEFICIT HYPOTHESIS:
I am a huge believer in the twin deficit hypothesis, which states the only reason a persistent trade deficit can persist is if there is a persistent fiscal deficit. Think about it logically, why can China continuously sell more stuff to Americans than Americans buy from China? Why don't Americans run out of money? The answer is because when we send money overseas to buy their cheap imports, they use that money to buy U.S Treasuries. The money is then reinserted back into the American economy via government spending, so Americans can once again buy more cheap shit from China. As time passes, China builds a capital surplus, we build a debt. The only way to reverse this is to do the opposite. America needs to tax more than it spends, use the money to repay its debt. China will then be forced to use this cash surplus to either buy American goods or invest in U.S enterprise, or trade it with someone who does. By balancing the budget or running a trade surplus, we can invert the trade deficit.
Theoretically, once the debt is fully repaid (JFL), the federal government can begin building a capital surplus, a sovereign wealth fund. This has the same effect of debt repayment, cash is channeled into financial markets as the government buys up stocks, bonds, and assets. The government will build up a capital reserve and can use its interest/dividend income to supplement taxes. This is what nation-states like Singapore, UAE, and China (to some extent) do. It's what will lead to long term prosperity and development.
ECONOMICS:
I am a big believer in Chicago School of Economics. Although most proponents of these theories tend to support very low taxes, I believe many miss the big picture. The real reason Supply Side Economics works (often called Trickle Down) is because the private sector is a much better allocator of resources than public bureaus, so if we leave more capital in the hands of private enterprise rather than in government, resources will be used more efficiently. A country can become richer by shrinking the government, lowering taxes, and letting the free market rather than the state dictate capital allotment.
There is one fundamental flaw in this theory, a tax cut without a spending cut is not a real tax cut, you're replacing one form of tax for another. If the government is spending $500bn, and taxing $500bn, you have a balanced budget, if taxes are cut so the government is only collecting $400bn, it still has to make up for that extra $100bn somehow, whether through borrowing or money-printing. Both alternatives are actually far more destructive for a society than simply taxing an extra $100bn. Borrowing $100bn is pulling capital away from capital markets, where it otherwise would be invested in private enterprise, printing money erodes trust and monetary stability. If the government is to spend $500bn, it should tax $500bn. A tax cut leads to economic growth if and only if it is bet with an equal cut in SPENDING. Spending is the independent variable here, not the taxes. When governments run deficits, they crowd out the private sector, siphoning bank capital that othewise would be invested in productive endeavours and reallocating it to unproductive purposes. Not only this but the government builds up a debt, burdening its future self with mandatory interest payments.
The same is also true in reverse, when government revenues are higher than expenses, they're running a budget surplus. The surplus capital is used to repay debt, putting capital back in the capital markets (where it will be used for productive purposes). As governments repay their debts, the private sector gets an extra boost of capital, you see a reverse crowding out. This is in conjunction with the lower future interest payments the government must pay in the future. Paying off debt is both good for the economy and long term solvency.
TWIN DEFICIT HYPOTHESIS:
I am a huge believer in the twin deficit hypothesis, which states the only reason a persistent trade deficit can persist is if there is a persistent fiscal deficit. Think about it logically, why can China continuously sell more stuff to Americans than Americans buy from China? Why don't Americans run out of money? The answer is because when we send money overseas to buy their cheap imports, they use that money to buy U.S Treasuries. The money is then reinserted back into the American economy via government spending, so Americans can once again buy more cheap shit from China. As time passes, China builds a capital surplus, we build a debt. The only way to reverse this is to do the opposite. America needs to tax more than it spends, use the money to repay its debt. China will then be forced to use this cash surplus to either buy American goods or invest in U.S enterprise, or trade it with someone who does. By balancing the budget or running a trade surplus, we can invert the trade deficit.
Theoretically, once the debt is fully repaid (JFL), the federal government can begin building a capital surplus, a sovereign wealth fund. This has the same effect of debt repayment, cash is channeled into financial markets as the government buys up stocks, bonds, and assets. The government will build up a capital reserve and can use its interest/dividend income to supplement taxes. This is what nation-states like Singapore, UAE, and China (to some extent) do. It's what will lead to long term prosperity and development.
