I was thinking of Biden.
In the Great Recession Roosevelt increased social spending. Did these increases remain or did somebody cut them again?

Vietnam Johnson then had his "Great Society" project. So beside spending for Vietnam, he also spent a lot on education and social affairs.
Could Johnson have done his reforms without his escalation in Vietnam?
Even smart children don't perform in school when they have stress at home. Did Johnson's social spendings reduce stress in black families so much that blacks started to perform much better? Or would the educational reforms have been enough?

Of course some people abused the system. Also New York did so much good it went bankrupt over it. Reagan and his fight against the welfare queens nearly 20 years after Johnson started the "Great Society" followed.

Is the condition of the Bronx in the early 80s why the US is so hostile over social spending?
Did Johnson overdo it with social spending or were 20 years of social spending needed to break the cycle of poverty of black people?

Germany till Helmut Kohl afforded itself high social spending. However unemployment was a bit too high. I believe a good amount of help for doing nothing ensures good starting salaries. Of course it also led to some abuse. And it also meant that people with low productivity may not be able to find a job.

Schröder cut those helps for doing nothing. Unemployment now is very low. But Germany has huge trade surplus. Did salaries not grow with productivity because the "money for doing nothing" was cut or because workers don't understand the importance of unions anymore?

Sokes wrote:

I was thinking of Biden.
In the Great Recession Roosevelt increased social spending. Did these increases remain or did somebody cut them again?

Vietnam Johnson then had his "Great Society" project. So beside spending for Vietnam, he also spent a lot on education and social affairs.
Could Johnson have done his reforms without his escalation in Vietnam?
Even smart children don't perform in school when they have stress at home. Did Johnson's social spendings reduce stress in black families so much that blacks started to perform much better? Or would the educational reforms have been enough?

Of course some people abused the system. Also New York did so much good it went bankrupt over it. Reagan and his fight against the welfare queens nearly 20 years after Johnson started the "Great Society" followed.

Is the condition of the Bronx in the early 80s why the US is so hostile over social spending?
Did Johnson overdo it with social spending or were 20 years of social spending needed to break the cycle of poverty of black people?

Germany till Helmut Kohl afforded itself high social spending. However unemployment was a bit too high. I believe a good amount of help for doing nothing ensures good starting salaries. Of course it also led to some abuse. And it also meant that people with low productivity may not be able to find a job.

Schröder cut those helps for doing nothing. Unemployment now is very low. But Germany has huge trade surplus. Did salaries not grow with productivity because the "money for doing nothing" was cut or because workers don't understand the importance of unions anymore?

Americans' memories are too short and knowledge of economics too limited to really draw meaningful conclusions to most of your questions. People are generally hostile toward social spending because they don't see it have a net or even positive impact on crime rates. Many social policies in the US have been undercut by increases in crime, to the extent that the life success of many social programs cannot really be measured adequately - it's a well known phenomenon in any study of US socioeconomics and political science. The mid-1970s marked an important turning point for a lot of trends in the US - and that's where people should focus their analysis. The end of the Vietnam War and Arab Oil Crisis occurred just a few years into most of the large programs you mention. However the negative impact of those two events went far beyond whatever incremental gains were being made in the 'great society' program (these benefits were limited because federal programs are less impactful than state programs).

The 1973-75 recession and its effects changed how many companies were run and sped along a paradigm shift that resulted in accelerated wage stagnation relative to COL and the beginning of offshoring manufacturing jobs. By the mid 1980s these trends had already yanked the floor out from under low income white and black communities that relied on blue collar jobs for stability. The end of the Vietnam War also brought thousands of people back into these communities who took their untreated PTSD and drug addictions with them. You can see that this double whammy in the 70s virtually assured there would be problems in low income areas by the early 80s. Things only got worse in the 80s when the CIA partnered with Colombian cartels to make their Central American gun-running operations more efficient, and that of course blew up the amount of drugs arriving in the states, and with it more urban violence. Just a revolving door of shitshow, really.

What does Johnson's escalation in Vietnam have to do with his "Great Society" project?

We have been told for decades that social programs are bad. There is no evidence of that but they are bad and we know because we have been told for decades. Of course there is waste, fraud, and abuse of social programs but that is no reason to cut the programs completely.

seb146 wrote:

What does Johnson's escalation in Vietnam have to do with his "Great Society" project?

We have been told for decades that social programs are bad. There is no evidence of that but they are bad and we know because we have been told for decades. Of course there is waste, fraud, and abuse of social programs but that is no reason to cut the programs completely.

The Democrats have made generations of poor people mainly blacks dependent on the government cheese that is why they can't get out of the situation they are in. Drug addicts use food stamps EBT and sell the cards for 50 cents on the dollar for cash that is common. Food stamps are probably the most abused program out there and a lot of convenience stores are complicit in scamming the system. These safety nets while well intentioned have been a failure. The Republicans certainly don't have any good answers either. Republicans are still big on the trickle down effect. While you would think that would make sense greedy businesses and CEO's take the profits and share virtually none with employees. The Democrats want to throw money at everything without doing anything to solve what is causing the issues much like the border crisis. Don't even get me started with the virtue signaling and the everything is white supremacy nonsense that is all the rage today.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What does Johnson's escalation in Vietnam have to do with his "Great Society" project?

We have been told for decades that social programs are bad. There is no evidence of that but they are bad and we know because we have been told for decades. Of course there is waste, fraud, and abuse of social programs but that is no reason to cut the programs completely.

The Democrats have made generations of poor people mainly blacks dependent on the government cheese that is why they can't get out of the situation they are in. Drug addicts use food stamps EBT and sell the cards for 50 cents on the dollar for cash that is common. Food stamps are probably the most abused program out there and a lot of convenience stores are complicit in scamming the system. These safety nets while well intentioned have been a failure. The Republicans certainly don't have any good answers either. Republicans are still big on the trickle down effect. While you would think that would make sense greedy businesses and CEO's take the profits and share virtually none with employees. The Democrats want to throw money at everything without doing anything to solve what is causing the issues much like the border crisis. Don't even get me started with the virtue signaling and the everything is white supremacy nonsense that is all the rage today.

A) None of that is true. B) the vast majority of "poor people...dependent on the government cheese" are whites and C) obviously nothing is going to deter you and conservatives from their dearly held looney crazy racist welfare tropes.

Peace and blessings.

Social spending in booming economy is somewhat bad.
Austerity measures during downturn are real bad. This is where conservatives fail, they insist on social spending cuts at the wrong time.

And social spending numbers are exaggerated.
GFC2008 banks got $3T in TARP and 5xQEs. How many houses are saved from foreclosures - next to none.
COVID-19 stimulus, less than 9% of entire package is social spending, rest are corporate incentives. I have to say, Biden (and Trump) acted responsibly unlike some third world leaders spending $$Billions on pet projects while people are sinking back into poverty.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Social spending in booming economy is somewhat bad.
Austerity measures during downturn are real bad. This is where conservatives fail, they insist on social spending cuts at the wrong time.

And social spending numbers are exaggerated.
GFC2008 banks got $3T in TARP and 5xQEs. How many houses are saved from foreclosures - next to none.
COVID-19 stimulus, less than 9% of entire package is social spending, rest are corporate incentives. I have to say, Biden (and Trump) acted responsibly unlike some third world leaders spending $$Billions on pet projects while people are sinking back into poverty.

How is a "booming economy" measured, though? That the top 1% of the top 1% can buy another yacht? That the Stock Market stays above a certain point? How does that help those making minimum wage and still can not afford things like food and housing and health care?

seb146 wrote:

What does Johnson's escalation in Vietnam have to do with his "Great Society" project?

Being tough on communism gave him conservative credentials. A bit like with "only Nixon could go to China.
Anyway a bit surprising that somebody who escalated a war made major civil rights reforms.
And indeed Martin Luther King criticised him because of Vietnam.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Social spending in booming economy is somewhat bad.
Austerity measures during downturn are real bad. This is where conservatives fail, they insist on social spending cuts at the wrong time.

And social spending numbers are exaggerated.
GFC2008 banks got $3T in TARP and 5xQEs. How many houses are saved from foreclosures - next to none.
COVID-19 stimulus, less than 9% of entire package is social spending, rest are corporate incentives. I have to say, Biden (and Trump) acted responsibly unlike some third world leaders spending $$Billions on pet projects while people are sinking back into poverty.

And if the downturn is because of structural problems including too much social spending?

When in 2008 newspapers in Germany reported how Greeks retire there was quite an outrage. The Greek government financed high social spending on foreign (speak German) credit. Germany on the other side has a lot of retired people who live close to poverty level.

Somewhere I read that Chinese started competing in industries Greece used to have. So Greece had the possibility to lower salaries to Chinese levels or finance their lifestyle on foreign credit.
One can imagine how tough austerity measures had to be.

Similar New York overdid it with social spending. Both sides are right at time. Finding the right level of social spending is not an ideological question. Lots of factors involved. Sometimes increases are necessary, sometimes cuts.

I believe social spendings beyond insurances people had paid for has to include restrictions on fertility.
Somebody with whatever mental problems should be able to rely on the solidarity of the people. Asking them to finance a few children on top of it is overdoing it.

What if there is a backward group that needs uplifting?

Aaron747 wrote:

Americans' memories are too short and knowledge of economics too limited to really draw meaningful conclusions to most of your questions. People are generally hostile toward social spending because they don't see it have a net or even positive impact on crime rates.

Really? Spending on the largest items in the US budget (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense) are largely popular. Hardly anyone even proposes cutting them anymore.

Sokes wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Social spending in booming economy is somewhat bad.
Austerity measures during downturn are real bad. This is where conservatives fail, they insist on social spending cuts at the wrong time.

And social spending numbers are exaggerated.
GFC2008 banks got $3T in TARP and 5xQEs. How many houses are saved from foreclosures - next to none.
COVID-19 stimulus, less than 9% of entire package is social spending, rest are corporate incentives. I have to say, Biden (and Trump) acted responsibly unlike some third world leaders spending $$Billions on pet projects while people are sinking back into poverty.

And if the downturn is because of structural problems including too much social spending?

When in 2008 newspapers in Germany reported how Greeks retire there was quite an outrage. The Greek government financed high social spending on foreign (speak German) credit. Germany on the other side has a lot of retired people who live close to poverty level.

Somewhere I read that Chinese started competing in industries Greece used to have. So Greece had the possibility to lower salaries to Chinese levels or finance their lifestyle on foreign credit.
One can imagine how tough austerity measures had to be.

Similar New York overdid it with social spending. Both sides are right at time. Finding the right level of social spending is not an ideological question. Lots of factors involved. Sometimes increases are necessary, sometimes cuts.

I believe social spendings beyond insurances people had paid for has to include restrictions on fertility.
Somebody with whatever mental problems should be able to rely on the solidarity of the people. Asking them to finance a few children on top of it is overdoing it.

What if there is a backward group that needs uplifting?

Restrictions on fertility are a very practical solution, but they are impossible in a free western society. It is more simple to means-test social benefits, but in some situations even that is impossible, such as public worker pensions in the US. If the state is under contractual obligation to a union, they must pay the pension even if the recipient has a high net worth.

cledaybuck wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Americans' memories are too short and knowledge of economics too limited to really draw meaningful conclusions to most of your questions. People are generally hostile toward social spending because they don't see it have a net or even positive impact on crime rates.

Really? Spending on the largest items in the US budget (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense) are largely popular. Hardly anyone even proposes cutting them anymore.

I don't think the OP was talking primarily about SS/Medicaid.

Sokes wrote:

And if the downturn is because of structural problems including too much social spending?
...
What if there is a backward group that needs uplifting?

If in fact social spending is the reason for fiscal deficit, it should be cut. In most cases social spending is not even 10% of corporate incentives, which never "trickle down".

Trickle down economics doesn't work, so some groups need uplifting.

Hypothesis: GFC 2008. How much it is would cost US Government pay up to 12 months mortgage on all defaults. Less than $3T.

If a country want to do away with social spending or safety net, let individuals insure "loss of income". Let private sector sell insurance to cover costs for limited period and let people buy such insurance.

Aaron747 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Americans' memories are too short and knowledge of economics too limited to really draw meaningful conclusions to most of your questions. People are generally hostile toward social spending because they don't see it have a net or even positive impact on crime rates.

Really? Spending on the largest items in the US budget (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense) are largely popular. Hardly anyone even proposes cutting them anymore.

I don't think the OP was talking primarily about SS/Medicaid.

He mentions Roosevelt and Johnson/Great Society. How is that not about SS and Medicare/Medicaid, which are textbook definitions of social spending? I would argue infrastructure spending is largely popular too.

dtw2hyd wrote:

In most cases social spending is not even 10% of corporate incentives, which never "trickle down".

I would be careful about " trickle down economics doesn't work. ".
German capitalists make huge profits. If they spend it on large private jets or villas, in short consumption, the money is gone. However if they use the money to build a factory in India or Vietnam, wealth very much trickles down. Many foreign businesses in India don't even intend to make profits. They want to be a known brand in case the Indian economy takes off. Can there be any more trickle down?

If a small business with five employees uses the profits to build flats, the housing market relaxes. In Germany in 1960 for 100 marriages there were 11 divorces. In 2011 there were 50.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten ... -bis-2008/

So even if people had to feel they are not better off, without trickle down these divorces may have not been possible.

Alternatively the small businesses owner may have savings in the bank which are lent to an Indian bank, financing growth or housing there.

If a capitalist buys an early Apple phone or early Tesla, he finances the learning curve. Of course dentists and lawyers may be enough for the learning curves of products, but inequality there has to be.

Overall: If capitalists spend their profits on consumption, there is (beside learning curve products) no trickle down. Otherwise there is, but it may not be in the same country.
How many billion people left absolute poverty the last 20 years?
How much tax to put on private jets, villas and worst, holiday homes?

dtw2hyd wrote:

In most cases social spending is not even 10% of corporate incentives...

Since Clinton repealed Glass Steagall and even more so since interest is very low, the rich gamble. They know the government bails them out.
However as long as capitalism has functioning regulations, social spendings are high, bailouts nearly nonexistent.

Sokes wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

In most cases social spending is not even 10% of corporate incentives, which never "trickle down".

I would be careful about " trickle down economics doesn't work. ".
German capitalists make huge profits. If they spend it on large private jets or villas, in short consumption, the money is gone. However if they use the money to build a factory in India or Vietnam, wealth very much trickles down. Many foreign businesses in India don't even intend to make profits. They want to be a known brand in case the Indian economy takes off. Can there be any more trickle down?

If a small business with five employees uses the profits to build flats, the housing market relaxes. In Germany in 1960 for 100 marriages there were 11 divorces. In 2011 there were 50.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten ... -bis-2008/

So even if people had to feel they are not better off, without trickle down these divorces may have not been possible.

Alternatively the small businesses owner may have savings in the bank which are lent to an Indian bank, financing growth or housing there.

If a capitalist buys an early Apple phone or early Tesla, he finances the learning curve. Of course dentists and lawyers may be enough for the learning curves of products, but inequality there has to be.

Overall: If capitalists spend their profits on consumption, there is (beside learning curve products) no trickle down. Otherwise there is, but it may not be in the same country.
How many billion people left absolute poverty the last 20 years?
How much tax to put on private jets, villas and worst, holiday homes?

I guess my comments are mostly about American economy. Not sure how it works in other countries.

Sokes wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

In most cases social spending is not even 10% of corporate incentives, which never "trickle down".

I would be careful about " trickle down economics doesn't work. ".
German capitalists make huge profits. If they spend it on large private jets or villas, in short consumption, the money is gone. However if they use the money to build a factory in India or Vietnam, wealth very much trickles down. Many foreign businesses in India don't even intend to make profits. They want to be a known brand in case the Indian economy takes off. Can there be any more trickle down?

If a small business with five employees uses the profits to build flats, the housing market relaxes. In Germany in 1960 for 100 marriages there were 11 divorces. In 2011 there were 50.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten ... -bis-2008/

So even if people had to feel they are not better off, without trickle down these divorces may have not been possible.

Alternatively the small businesses owner may have savings in the bank which are lent to an Indian bank, financing growth or housing there.

If a capitalist buys an early Apple phone or early Tesla, he finances the learning curve. Of course dentists and lawyers may be enough for the learning curves of products, but inequality there has to be.

Overall: If capitalists spend their profits on consumption, there is (beside learning curve products) no trickle down. Otherwise there is, but it may not be in the same country.
How many billion people left absolute poverty the last 20 years?
How much tax to put on private jets, villas and worst, holiday homes?

If a factory is built in India or Vietnam, the workers are still paid very low wages and expected to meet a high demand. They get no trickle down. We consumers in the United States are expected to support the few at the top while working for low wages and not getting the trickle down. There is a lot to be said for R&D and investing in a company and buying their products. But, we have been told for decades that the very wealthy need all the money so they will give that back to us at the bottom. We are still waiting...

seb146 wrote:

But, we have been told for decades that the very wealthy need all the money so they will give that back to us at the bottom. We are still waiting...

I also believe the last 20 years it was trickling down to the lower 6 billion. The one billion people on top (industrial countries labour class) rather lost on their standard of living.

Why should a US laborer earn as much as an Indian dentist?
I work with very smart people who have their own workshop, but below 5 employees. I work with the owners only. I pay them around 4 Dollars/ hour. They probably belong to the smart 3% of the population. But they never got a chance to make a degree. Should such people never get a chance for a decent life?

Workers in industrial countries may indeed be better off if those countries had to close their economies. But for some increase of the median income and a decrease of average income of the top 1 billion most of the 6 billion below may not be able to afford chicken once a week.

Another problem in the US and Asia: Capitalists waste too much money on consumption. I consider such excessive consumption as bad taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum

I don't mind the rich to have a business jet. But I rather look down on people who have a huge business jet and three holiday homes. Sounds like a lack of vision what to do with wealth for me. A late friend of my mother had a holiday home on a Mediterranean island. Her husband was a small scale business man. When they went for holidays one week was needed to get the house in order. My mother said she wouldn't like such a house even for free.
Elon Musk is a wise man. He said his many houses are just wasting his time. He overcame his bourgeois ideals (he wasn't born that rich.)

Another problem:
The Chinese economy has huge surplus value of labor. A few of the American super rich are allowed to spend a good part of that money while the industrial laborers can't compete with their Chinese counterpart any longer.
But who should complain, the Chinese or the US laborer?

Just like Korea China also increases salaries. There is no fixed size cake. In time China may join the rich nations. The first two generations of wealthy people spend a lot on housing. Once there is enough housing Chinese may spend more for holidays and electronic gadgets. Demand for Western products will increase. And I doubt the Chinese will have a saving glut forever.
There may be more normal times ahead for Western labour.

Sokes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

But, we have been told for decades that the very wealthy need all the money so they will give that back to us at the bottom. We are still waiting...

I also believe the last 20 years it was trickling down to the lower 6 billion. The one billion people on top (industrial countries labour class) rather lost on their standard of living.

Why should a US laborer earn as much as an Indian dentist?
I work with very smart people who have their own workshop, but below 5 employees. I work with the owners only. I pay them around 4 Dollars/ hour. They probably belong to the smart 3% of the population. But they never got a chance to make a degree. Should such people never get a chance for a decent life?

Workers in industrial countries may indeed be better off if those countries had to close their economies. But for some increase of the median income and a decrease of average income of the top 1 billion most of the 6 billion below may not be able to afford chicken once a week.

Another problem in the US and Asia: Capitalists waste too much money on consumption. I consider such excessive consumption as bad taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum

I don't mind the rich to have a business jet. But I rather look down on people who have a huge business jet and three holiday homes. Sounds like a lack of vision what to do with wealth for me. A late friend of my mother had a holiday home on a Mediterranean island. Her husband was a small scale business man. When they went for holidays one week was needed to get the house in order. My mother said she wouldn't like such a house even for free.
Elon Musk is a wise man. He said his many houses are just wasting his time. He overcame his bourgeois ideals (he wasn't born that rich.)

Another problem:
The Chinese economy has huge surplus value of labor. A few of the American super rich are allowed to spend a good part of that money while the industrial laborers can't compete with their Chinese counterpart any longer.
But who should complain, the Chinese or the US laborer?

Just like Korea China also increases salaries. There is no fixed size cake. In time China may join the rich nations. The first two generations of wealthy people spend a lot on housing. Once there is enough housing Chinese may spend more for holidays and electronic gadgets. Demand for Western products will increase. And I doubt the Chinese will have a saving glut forever.
There may be more normal times ahead for Western labour.

So let's consider that a dentist in India earns more than a cashier in India. But, also know that EVERYONE in India can attend dental school thanks to (wait for it) THE GOVERNMENT. But, yeah, totally apples to apples.

seb146 wrote:

So let's consider that a dentist in India earns more than a cashier in India. But, also know that EVERYONE in India can attend dental school thanks to (wait for it) THE GOVERNMENT. But, yeah, totally apples to apples.

I don't understand what you mean.
The Indian dentist needn't be able to afford a two weeks holiday in a country of his choice as long as he earns more than an Indian cashier?

The US wasn't always that rich. They started competing with the British by using technology which was developed in Britain. Guess what, the British labour class wasn't amused.

"The Industrial Revolution in Continental Europe came later than in Great Britain. It started in Belgium and France, then spread to the German states by the middle of the 19th century. In many industries, this involved the application of technology developed in Britain in new places. Typically the technology was purchased from Britain or British engineers and entrepreneurs moved abroad in search of new opportunities. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

Sokes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So let's consider that a dentist in India earns more than a cashier in India. But, also know that EVERYONE in India can attend dental school thanks to (wait for it) THE GOVERNMENT. But, yeah, totally apples to apples.

I don't understand what you mean.
The Indian dentist needn't be able to afford a two weeks holiday in a country of his choice as long as he earns more than an Indian cashier?

The US wasn't always that rich. They started competing with the British by using technology which was developed in Britain. Guess what, the British labour class wasn't amused.

"The Industrial Revolution in Continental Europe came later than in Great Britain. It started in Belgium and France, then spread to the German states by the middle of the 19th century. In many industries, this involved the application of technology developed in Britain in new places. Typically the technology was purchased from Britain or British engineers and entrepreneurs moved abroad in search of new opportunities. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

I am talking about starting. Going to school in the United States cost big bucks. Especially if one wants to be a dentist or doctor or lawyer or engineer. Some people in the United States do not have that kind of money, so they end up in low paying jobs and getting on government assistance programs like Medicade and food stamps and Section 8 because they can not afford those things with their low salary.

seb146 wrote:

I am talking about starting. Going to school in the United States cost big bucks. Especially if one wants to be a dentist or doctor or lawyer or engineer. Some people in the United States do not have that kind of money, so they end up in low paying jobs and getting on government assistance programs like Medicade and food stamps and Section 8 because they can not afford those things with their low salary.

I misunderstood.
However education in India isn't free either. I believe the main reason most people get only two children now is because of cost of education.

Sokes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I am talking about starting. Going to school in the United States cost big bucks. Especially if one wants to be a dentist or doctor or lawyer or engineer. Some people in the United States do not have that kind of money, so they end up in low paying jobs and getting on government assistance programs like Medicade and food stamps and Section 8 because they can not afford those things with their low salary.

I misunderstood.
However education in India isn't free either. I believe the main reason most people get only two children now is because of cost of education.

University education is much more affordable in India than here, I would bet. Americans are putting off having children because of the added expense. They are deep in debt for their education and can not afford a child.

4th Stimulus Check in the works ? ? ?

Sen. Sanders & Schumer talking... about going ahead, without the Rs and without Biden...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgasxwArasU

seb146 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I am talking about starting. Going to school in the United States cost big bucks. Especially if one wants to be a dentist or doctor or lawyer or engineer. Some people in the United States do not have that kind of money, so they end up in low paying jobs and getting on government assistance programs like Medicade and food stamps and Section 8 because they can not afford those things with their low salary.

I misunderstood.
However education in India isn't free either. I believe the main reason most people get only two children now is because of cost of education.

University education is much more affordable in India than here, I would bet. Americans are putting off having children because of the added expense. They are deep in debt for their education and can not afford a child.

Not really. You are talking about University education. I would start with school and high school education. In the last seven years, GOI has allocated anywhere between 3-4% of the GDP. Now allocation is not equal to spending. A good rule of thumb in figuring out what GOI has actually 'spent', just cut it by 50%. The rest of those funds go into Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) which is a permanent black hole. From there where the money goes, nobody knows.

Now as far as births are concerned, even India is doing the same for the above reasons. And I would say it would only accelerate as the last 7 years more Indians got into poverty rather than out of it. The Pandemic itself doing no favors.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/bus ... 124985.cms

The double-whammy means we would not get out of this anytime soon. Even our vaccination program, when it will start we don't know. The Chinese are now vaccinating at the rate of 1 crore people a day, while we have same population nowhere near there. Within 6 months they will be out of pandemic, while for us it may still take a year or two more. If any more mutants happen, don't blame us, blame our leaders.