Errors of Democratic Party Supporters

I wanted the previous post to be the final one (as with many other posts) but it looks like people are continuing to ignore this idea.

As has probably been mentioned before on this site people make simplifications about the world. Recent posts by various people make it clear that our political parties are using these assumptions:

Democratic party: Wall Street is bad, its profits are immoral.

Republican party: inflation is bad.

As any moderately intelligent person should be able to understand, higher efficiency without more products or a reduction of average hours worked will lead to unemployment. Much of our current economic problems come from economists who have been trained to assume that the 'efficient' choice is always the correct one, anyone who chooses the inefficient choice is stupid or even immoral, and yet any situation which seems to include inefficiency or unnecessary outcomes like poverty and unemployment is due to 'rational' choices where only the government can cause further gains in total benefit.

Anyway, the current situation: by introducing inefficiency, the government could lead to higher employment with everyone working full-time. Since it is somewhat dishonest to do this, some people are willing to support a presidential candidate they see as being dishonest. No one should be surprised if people make a choice which leads to higher employment, instead of the choice which would lead to the greatest 'efficiency' in one aspect of a situation... since unemployment is not efficient in many significant ways.

People do not know if there exists a solution to unemployment that does not involve higher government spending. Generally, if something seems like it should be possible, its absence is either due to a problem with intentions or a problem with capabilities. But most people aren't very good at thinking about this.

So as previous posts have pointed out, most of Wall Street's profits follow directly from the existence of inflation and 'stupid money' entering the financial markets. The result is more economic activity and higher employment for an economy compared to if the financial sector was smaller or less complicated with higher apparent returns for investors. But Democratic party supporters are not willing to accept that this 'unethical' situation leads to positive results, and so they try to pretend that the economy or society would be better without Wall Street.

Neither party really has an idea of 'step two', as they are both unable or unwilling to try to comprehend the complexity of the economy and the implications of their ideological errors. Instead they just use a simple plan of 'winning' the current battle, and then they will decide what to do after that is done. Since both parties, it seems, assume that the middle class is either selfish or stupid and unwilling to support things without obvious direct economic benefit to them, neither is willing to suggest higher taxes on the middle class and so the economy will not really be fixed through their strategies.

But in the short term, again, the Republican party's chance of winning elections increases if unemployment remains high.

So a vote for the Republican party is a vote for the idea that "economists and government leaders are immoral and cannot be trusted to suggest or advocate workable solutions". As evidence, economists are not willing to support the idea that the United States has enough wealth to tax the rich and middle class to create jobs without deficits despite that Wall Street's profits are very high and have not announced that they have found a way to fix unemployment without higher taxes or inflation.

Anyone who has read this site and found the idea on it convincing will have asked themselves a question: why have economists not supported the idea? The President cannot be expected to evaluate every suggestion regarding the economy and even the people who review correspondence with the White House or the offices of other government leaders do not expect anything revolutionary in what they read. When someone wanted to inform Franklin D. Roosevelt of the possibility for creating a nuclear bomb, they did not write to him using public channels but instead gave a letter to Albert Einstein who in turn entrusted it with someone who spoke to the President directly. Given that this site, and previous messages on pastebin.com, have demonstrated that certain economists should be aware of this idea there are two possibilities that someone who thinks that unemployment is an important national concern will be led to: that the idea would not work for some reason, or that economists are 'evil' or in some way benefit from not supporting the idea.

The mental cost thus incurred is unavoidable as long as there are economists who seem to be supporting any goal that this idea would accomplish, such as lower unemployment and inequality, lower Wall Street profits, a more ethical society, less crime, or the Democratic party winning in the upcoming elections.

So, as the first message on this subject implied but did not openly state, if anyone wants any of these results to occur please forward this message or the idea on this website to the President of the United States for his consideration.