The Left's Holiday from Sane

It’s often noted that a practical working definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over again with an expectation of different results.  In similar vein, it is clear that many of the best loved political and economic theories of the left are non-falsifiable.  The intersection of non-falsifiable theory, insanity, and reality can be summed up in one word: Unexpectedly.

Why the ‘Unexpected’ Keeps Happening

Why do so many journalists describe Obama’s foreseeable economic failures as “unexpected”?

by Paul Hsieh | Pajamas Media

If an irresponsible teenager repeatedly crashed his car into a tree
whenever he had a few beers, we would never say his accidents were
“unexpected.” Rather, they would be foreseeable consequences of driving
while drinking. Similarly, we shouldn’t let journalists get away with
describing as “unexpected” the foreseeable negative consequences of bad
government policies.

Blogger Glenn Reynolds recently highlighted numerous examples
of the media’s increasingly frequent use of “unexpected” to describe
bad economic news. Unemployment “unexpectedly” rose despite federal
“stimulus.” Home sales “unexpectedly” fell despite taxpayer bailouts. ER
visits unexpectedly rose in Massachusetts despite RomneyCare.
Similarly, the Pundit Press blog has rounded-up dozens of examples of such “unexpected” developments since January 2011.

A prime example has been thoughtfully provided to us by the Obama Administration and regularly updated since: The infamous Unemployment with and without the Stimulous forceast:

Administration Projections of Unemployment With and Without Stimulus

After the first full year of fail, how can the ongoing failure of the stimulus to impact unemployment as predicted by the authors of that stimulus be “unexpected”?

The answer of course is that it can only be unexpected to those who would reject any data which fails to conform to their theory.  Keep this inversion of scientific method in mind the next time someone tells you that “The Science is Settled.”  Science is NEVER settled.  Accepted theories are eventually supplanted with new theories which better describe the observed behavior.

However, the fact that such government interventions necessarily
stifle economic progress is not news. Volumes have been written on this
topic. The “natural laboratories” of East Germany vs. West Germany,
North Korea vs. South Korea, and communist China vs. Hong Kong amply
illustrated the principle that whenever government forcibly thwarted
people from furthering their happiness and their lives, the result was
misery and death.

The same phenomenon can be observed in the natural laboratories
within the United States. Economist Mark Perry has described how
businesses are leaving California in “record numbers” for states like Texas that offer greater freedom from burdensome regulations. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas.

In the comments sections here we see that same tendency to reject data instead of looking to alternate theories which better explain the observed behavior, and a marked unwillingness to examine theories and data inimical to the “accepted wisdom.”

Similarly, when the Mercatus Center released its 2011 Index of Economic and Personal Freedom ranking all 50 U.S. states, they noted two interesting facts.
First, economic freedom correlated with income growth. Second,
Americans “voted with their feet” and moved from states with less
freedom to states with more freedom.

Ordinary Americans understand the link between freedom and
prosperity. So why do so many well-educated journalists and pundits
persist in describing the Obama administration’s foreseeable economic
failures as “unexpected”?

Although some conspiracy theorists may believe this is a deliberate
ploy by media and political elites to destroy America from within, the
actual answer is worse. The problem is not a willful desire to destroy
America but rather a willful blindness to the facts.

 

Can we afford to leave our nation in the care of those who are willfully blind to the facts?

His Brother's Keeper
Forget the people, save our cronies!
  • jim m

    When Barry loses in 2010 that will be “unexpected” too. Leftists will riot in the streets of major cities. Because they have defined democracy not as “one person, one vote”, but as violent mobs forcing their will upon a defenseless populace.

    They don’t understand reality and they refuse to recognize it when it comes up and slaps them in the face.

  • Eric

    Similarly, the Pundit Press blog has rounded-up dozens of examples of such “unexpected” developments since January 2011.

    Since January 2011? They need to expand their search parameters. The media has been using the word “unexpected” since January 2009.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Why do so many journalists describe Obama’s foreseeable economic failures as “unexpected”?

    Why? Because they’re not Paul Krugman. Krugman wanted Obama to pursue a far more stimulus-oriented policy, and warned that without enough stimulus and too much reliance on tax breaks, which are by now proven to have negligible effect, we would be in a position similar to Japan and their lost decade.

    But, that’s what happens when a centrist pursues a moderate policy to appease conservatives, when what’s really needed is FDR. But, it’s still better than the insane Hoover that McCain would have been, so, we take what we can get.

  • jim m

    we would be in a position similar to Japan and their lost decade.

    Yep. Instead we are about to experience a lost quarter century. Only the most obtuse can believe that more stimulus would have helped a now bankrupt nation.

    It is so convenient to claim that the stimulus would have worked had it been bigger when the truth is that it was already bigger than we could afford. So what Krugman and imbecilic followers like Jim X want is to set the conditions for success outside of the realm of possibility so they can claim that their policies would have worked if only we had really followed them.

    Again yet another example of “Our leftism works. We just weren’t far left enough!”

  • Rodney Graves

    shorter jim beach:

    That didn’t work, let’s try it some more!

    Then again anyone who’d refer to 0bama as a “centrist” is participating from the parking lot on the left hand side of the stadium beyond the third base line.

  • DaveD

    Many years ago when I lived in Philly, there were pockets of the city designated as enterprise zones. These areas were blighted enclaves in which economic re-vitalization became a priority. They were characterized by tax and regulatory relief to entice entrepreneurs, small businesses and investors into these areas. We all know these have been used in other cities as well and these zones have been designated by policies under Democrat/liberal mayors. I find myself on occasion thinking maybe liberals are born and not made and they are wired to be delusional, having the uncanny ability conferred by genetics to ignore fact in favor of fantasy. But I also know that with liberal mayors having instituted these areas in cities, liberals must know deep down – despite the coping mechanism of denial – that minimal regulation, low taxes, etc. do have positive effects on economic development. I can’t believe we feel the need to show any deference to any liberal debate on economic policy that suggests otherwise.

  • jim m

    that’s what happens when a centrist pursues a moderate policy to appease conservatives

    That’s right. obama is a centrist and he had to moderate his policies to get them through the democrat dominated House and filibuster proof Senate. Oh, wait. His party controlled everything. He had the biggest majorities in living memory and the most liberal Speaker ever. But being the ‘centrist’ that he was, he moderated his policies so still no republicans would vote for them and he would still get them passed.

    Yep. That makes no sense whatsoever. Another insane rambling from the left desperate to craft a narrative that blames the right for the utter failure of their leftist agenda.

  • Sep14

    “But, that’s what happens when a centrist pursues a moderate policy to appease conservatives,”

    I agree! He is at the center and sponsor of the biggest Depression evah!!

    More cool-aid for the clown in aisle 3 please!

  • DaveD

    jim x opines:
    “But, that’s what happens when a centrist pursues a moderate policy to appease conservatives, when what’s really needed is FDR.”

    Oh my. Of course it is not hard to find Henry Morgenthau’s admonishment to FDR on his fiscal policies:

    “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot.”

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    You’re right DaveD. It’s not hard at all to find that quote of Morgenthau.

    What’s also interesting to note is that when FDR followed Morgenthau’s advice and stopped government spending so as to reduce government debt, the result was the 1938 recession. So Morgenthau got his wish, and someone else got his job when FDR fired him.

    And after Morgenthau was fired, the US went back on to be completely out of the Great Depression by the start of WWII.

  • Tsar Nicholas II

    A minor quibble, but the title of this post is a non-sequitur. Leftists cannot take a “holiday” from sanity for the simple reason that they’re perpetually insane.

  • DaveD

    “And after Morgenthau was fired, the US went back on to be completely out of the Great Depression by the start of WWII.”

    I disagree. The curtailment of higher government spending decreased the GDP which was artificially inflated by high government spending. I think that is ultimately unsustainable. I believe Roosevelt was more impatient with Morgenthau’s policies than he was with his own. If you believe we were “completely” out of the Depression by WWII (and I believe debate continues to this day on this) I would suggest it was due to the growth of the private sector (manufacturing) that grew despite Roosevelt’s policy. If FDR’s policy is indeed correct then his experiment can continue with an apparent acolyte in Paul Krugman. Of course, we don’t have much of a manufacturing base any more here but I guess we can see if deficit spending works as well in a service economy as you feel it did when manufacturing was king in the US. Of course we could also do the infrastructure improvement thing on deficit spending so at least the unions will benefit economically. The rest of us may not have a job to pay for gas to drive on those newly refurbished roads and bridges though.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Well DaveD, you’re certainly entitled to disagree. But if you look at the US economy and the government spending that was sustaining it while the US was recovering from the Great Depression, there’s a clear and significant dip in the economy that directly correlates with the government spending reduction that Morgenthau pushed.

    As re: when we exited the Great Depression, it was my understanding that this was directly before WWII is the mainstream economic view. But certainly there can be some disagreement about this.

    Where the important difference in views is, whether the private sector recovered **in spite of** FDR’s policies or **greatly aided by** FDR’s policies.

    And the dip of 1938 seems to very clearly prove the case that it was **because of** FDR’s policies. Turn on government spending in 1932 – forward out of the depression for 6 years. Turn off government spending in 1938 – backwards movement into the depression again. Turn it on for another 2 years to 1940 – or further to after WWII, if you prefer – and the Depression is shaken off outright.

    Then of course you have a tough couple of years of adjustement when WWII’s GI’s return home and need to find jobs again, while US war production also ceases. But then with the solid foundation of a healthy, trained and productive populace, a rebuilt infrastructure and GI Bill advances, you have the groundwork for some of our most successful decades.

    All while taxes on the wealthy in particular were much higher than they were now, in fact.

    I agree with you re: manufacturing base. The solution is to **build up** our manufacturing base – and repair our crumbling infrastructure – and once again supply the world with our goods. Not just abandon our economy to the random chance of the market.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Yep. Instead we are about to experience a lost quarter century. Only the most obtuse can believe that more stimulus would have helped a now bankrupt nation.

    Oh, the unbelievable obtuseness of the vast majority of nonpartisan economic experts!

    Oy.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Here Jim M, I fixed your comment for you. Errors corrected in bold.

    Yep. Instead we are about to experience a lost quarter century. Only the most obtuse can believe that more tax cuts would have helped a now bankrupt nation.

    It is so convenient to claim that the tax cuts and de-regulation would have worked had it been bigger when the truth is that it was already bigger than we could afford. So what Bachman, Palin, et al and imbecilic followers like Jim M want is to set the conditions for success outside of the realm of possibility so they can claim that their policies would have worked if only we had really followed them.

    Again yet another example of “Our rightism works. We just weren’t far right enough!”

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Then again anyone who’d refer to 0bama as a “centrist” is participating from the parking lot on the left hand side of the stadium beyond the third base line.

    Seriously, Rodney – wouldn’t you refer to yourself as being right wing? Then guess what? The center DOES look like the Left to you.

    If Obama is supposedly so far to the Left, then what is one single thing he’s done which is so to the Left that Bill Clinton, a universally acknowledged centrist, would not do it?

  • Sep14

    They are both liars jim x, Clintoon just delivered it better without the obvious gaffes that Barry is blessed with.

    Clinton wagged his dog at interns and aspirin factories.

    Barry wags his sand wedge and starts religious wars.

  • GarandFan

    Easy to explain Rodney. It’s “unexpected” because the progressives ‘were going to get it right THIS TIME’.

  • Art W

    I guess the failure of the Bush Tax cuts to generate employment (as promised by the Republicans) is also a reason to keep updating the chart.

    Republicans swore that the Bush Tax cut extensions were good for the economy. Here’s proof that is incorrect. 10 years of Bush tax cuts for the rich and the economy is still scraping bottom.

    Tax cuts for the rich DO NOT generate jobs.

  • WildWillie

    Actually, a huge majority leans right so the left is far left.

    These same experts (unbiased? right) said if we didn’t do the last stimulus right away, unemployment MAY reach 8%. We spent. They were wrong. It only got worse. Obama and his economic plan, or lack of one, is dead. It failed. It isn’t even on life support. It is in the hearse speeding to the grave site. In 2012 we will bury the plan.

    I listened to Obamabozo’s presser. What a life of denial. He is demanding that congress get to work. He said he is there all the time, it is congress that is off. The MSM just yawned. ww

  • jim m

    That’s right jim x, high spending, high taxation and high regulation is the way to prosperity. It worked so well for Jimmy carter. He gave us 4 wonderful years of stagflation with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Barry is doing the same thing and if we used the same metrics as under Carter the inflation would be over 10% and unemployment would be over 15%.

    Contrast to Reagan, who cut taxes, cut regulation and we saw one of the largest economic expansions in history. We got unemployment down to 5.3%, inflation was tamed and spending decreased as a percent of GDP (yes it increased as an absolute number). Heaven forbid that we should repeat such an experience.

    Just keep on denying reality, jim x. When obama’s crack pot keynesianism brings us hyperinflation I am sure you will blame it on the right. I don’t expect your explanation to make any sense but you will do so none the less.

    You think that spending more would have made things better, yet we are on the brink of default. How should we have spent more? The Chinese have divested themselves of their debt holdings and are unlikely to purchase any more. I suppose you think that obama should just inflate us out of this economic difficulty? That would be irresponsible in the extreme but par for the course with the economic idiots that run this country.

  • jim m

    Tax cuts for the rich DO NOT generate jobs

    Keeping the Bush tax cuts was not supposed to generate jobs. It was supposed to prevent further losses to the economy.

    And even cutting taxes in the current environment does not mean that employers will hire. Employers are looking at mountains of regulation that is restricting their ability to grow. That more than anything is keeping this economy down and keeping unemployment up. Employers cannot look to the future and say that they know whet the tax and regulatoryu environment will be. Keeping the Bush tax cuts temporarily didn’t help growth because people are factoring in the promise that obama will raise taxes later. You cannot make a long term decision based on a tax policy that is only supposed to last a year or two.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    They are both liars jim x, Clintoon just delivered it better without the obvious gaffes that Barry is blessed with.

    Clinton wagged his dog at interns and aspirin factories.

    Barry wags his sand wedge and starts religious wars.

    Where to start? I mean, wow. Aspirin factory bombing – wow.

    Tell me Rodney – in retrospect, do you think Clinton was right in trying to get Bin Laden? Yes or no?

    You do realize that’s who Clinton was going after with that bombing, right?

    And which President was it who then actually *got* Bin Laden? Just curious.

    As for lies – is there anything approaching the fully-sourced database of more than 500 actual lies put out by the Bush Administration, on the subject of Iraq and terrorism alone?

    http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

    I mean, my God. I’ll tell you what – just produce sourced lies even matching that for either Clinton or Obama. And for Obama, since he’s only 2 1/2 years in, let’s make that 175 lies or so.

    Look – I don’t agree with the ideologies of most of the people here. But that’s not my real problem. What bothers me is how often you guys are so averse to ESTABLISHED FACTS.

    All this rigmarole re: Gov’t spending and the economy has been thoroughly debunked for decades. And confirmed again once Bill Clinton came into office. And repeated by me on this site, and sourced also.

    Do you care at all to refute my sources?

    Otherwise, why not alter your worldview so it’s actually in step with reality? Sure, it’s uncomfortable at first. But we’re adults, and these are real and important issues. It’s not good enough to just believe what you want rather than what’s backed up by the facts and by impartial experts.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    And Rodney, I’m also waiting for an answer to this:

    If Obama is supposedly so far to the Left, then what is one single thing he’s done which is so to the Left that Bill Clinton, a universally acknowledged centrist, would not do it?

    Well?

    ’cause otherwise, Obama’s clearly a centrist. Like it or not.

  • Rodney Graves

    Beach,

    Let’s see… Bill Clinton’s memoir was not ghost authored by a domestic terrorist.

    Bill Clinton abandoned nationalized health care.

    Bill Clinton balanced a budget.

    Bill Clinton was and is no centrist, he was and is an opportunist.

  • Sky Captain

    @ Wart in 19:

    Yawn.

    —————–

    And I’ll call “BS!” on D’OHbama being “centrist”.
    In his press conference today, Teh Won played the class warfare (raise taxes on “the rich”)and “Let’s All Panic” cards – just like a good little leftist.

  • GarandFan

    “10 years of Bush tax cuts for the rich and the economy is still scraping bottom. “

    Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

    Those years of 5% unemployment were a real bitch, weren’t they Art?

    What’s the continuing unemployment rate after Barry’s “Stimulus” to keep it below 8%?

    Huh, Art?

  • Sky Captain

    WW in #20;

    Has it not been the Democrats in Congress, especially the Senate, that has not passed a budget since what, 2009?

    And the Kenyan Community Organizer is calling for Republicans to get to work? Riiiiiight…

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    OK, Rodney. So we apparently have very different definitions of what a centrist means.

    So, I’m curious. In your opinion, what would a centrist presidents’s view be of the following positions?

    - abortion – allow it or outlaw it?
    - taxes – increase, decrease, or leave alone?
    - unemployment – extend benefits in times of economic stress, or let them expire?
    - wall street regulations – increase, decrease, or leave alone?
    - social security – privatize it or leave it as is?
    - Gaddafi – allow him to remain in power, or designate air forces to push him out as long as no US boots go on the ground?
    - Bin Laden – take him out and irritate Pakistan, or leave him alone?

    Once again, not your views but a **centrist President’s** views

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Let’s see… Bill Clinton’s memoir was not ghost authored by a domestic terrorist.

    OMG.

    And neither was Barack Obama’s. ffs.

    Also he isn’t made of green cheese.

    Seriously, you really believe that?

    You do know how easy that is to check, right? There’s software programs that analyze word count and placement and match them up with the author. It found out Joe Klein as the anonymous author of “Primary Colors”, and it found a previously unknown Shakespearean sonnet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster

    So if this were true, don’t you think it would have been already proven?

    Why do you cling to this belief as well? Seriously.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    And as a side note, why is my simple question in # 29 being downrated? I’m curious about that as well.

    After all, since I’m just trying to find out what his position is, I’m curious about what that’s apparently a bad thing? Anyone?

  • iwogisdead

    jim x manages to derail another thread.

    We don’t have to speculate or argue theory–Obama’s economic policies have failed miserably. Unemployment up, dollar down, oil up, hope down, national debt up. And it’s gonna get worse.

    And Obama, today, was utterly incomprehensible. It’s rich people vs. sick kids. The GOP is irresponsible because they’re on vacation. He blames “jet owners” but the stimulus package had a tax break to buy jets. More importantly, his kids finish their homework on time.

    He’s losing touch, and the polls show it. He’s in big trouble.

  • PBunyan

    “It’s often noted that a practical working definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over again with an expectation of different results.”

    Another definition would be to waste time trying to point out the truth and real facts to the likes of Jim X and Art W. They simply refuse to see the truth and believe obvious falsehoods to be fact. It’s just not worth the time or effort.

    Better to just laugh at thier stunning, willful ignorance and cry for America since people like Jim X. and Art W. get to vote.

  • DJ Drummond

    Exhibit A, from comment 13: “the US economy and the government spending that was sustaining it”

    Only someone who failed basic economics would resume that a parasitic activity would ‘sustain’ an essential function.

    Exhibit B, from comment 19: “failure of the Bush Tax cuts to generate employment “

    Unemployment during W: 5.25% average
    Unemployment during O: 9.45% average

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

    Obvious which President focused on jobs.

    Game over, Left loses through ignorance and arrogance.

    As usual.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Sigh.

    Then, DJ, either:

    a) the majority of economists and economic historians have failed basic economics, or

    b) you’re wrong.

    Ima go with ‘a’ here.

    And as re: “tax cuts generate employment”, sorry – the economy hit the fan under George Bush. So to tout his “average” while ignoring the crash and it’s aftermath is really pretty silly.

    Realistically, it’s like saying “I drove the car for 8 days, so it had an average of 60 mph! Now he’s got it, and for the past 2 days it’s been doing an average of 50!” – while conveniently ignoring how, right before you turned the car over, you blew out the engine block and ran it into a streetlamp.

  • DJ Drummond

    Jim, there are a great many mistakes you made in comment #29. AT least, mistakes if you were trying to ask honest questions …

    I will go through them just to show you the error of your ways:

    1. “abortion – allow it or outlaw it?”

    Neither. It’s not the President’s job to create law. If Congress were to make abortion illegal, or SCOTUS were to reverse Roe v. Wade, then it would be appropriate for a President to weigh in according to his/her perspective. Your question implies that a President should actively try to influence standing law, which is not a valid question in the context of ‘centrist’.

    2. “taxes – increase, decrease, or leave alone?”

    This depends on the situation. In times of recession and high unemployment, raising taxes has been proven to hurt the economy while not appreciably improving revenues. The question is largely invalid because it implies neutral conditions, whcih are not applicable in this current circumstance.

    3. “unemployment – extend benefits in times of economic stress, or let them expire?”

    Another case of POTUS usurping Congressional authority, and by the way extending benefits without addressing root causes of unemployment is absurd. Therefore, even were the question pertinent to POTUS, it is incomplete since it addresses symptoms rather than cause.

    4. “wall street regulations – increase, decrease, or leave alone?”

    Again, this is Congress’ job, not the President. And regulation for its own sake has no benefit. The question could not even be applied to Congress without specific citation of the problem and proposed actions, costs, and projected benefits, along with a Deming-style review to make corrections or even repeal the regulations if they don’t work, something long overdue in the real world.

    5. “social security – privatize it or leave it as is?”

    Again, Congress’ territory and your question is far over-simplified. Although Bush had it right in 2005, when he warned that SSI would run out of money soon if nothing was done. You may recall the Democrats’ long slumber in response, especially when they controlled both chambers after 2006.

    6. “Gaddafi – allow him to remain in power, or designate air forces to push him out as long as no US boots go on the ground?”

    An absurd perspective. You ignore the violation of the War Powers Act, the fact that this situation was not an option for any previous president, and by the way K-Daffy is still loose and looney as ever.

    7. “Bin Laden – take him out and irritate Pakistan, or leave him alone?”

    Again, another situation not presented to any prior President and by the way, the credible reports have Seal Team Six doing the job, not the President, whose contribution amounted to nodding his head when briefed by Panetta and the head of Special Forces about the mission.

    Frankly, none of the questions has the first thing to do with a ‘centrist’ policy or position, and several imply the President acting outside the scope of his office.

    You screwed up pretty bad, JimX. I don’t think you were very smart to point folks back to that pile of bull-stuff you left above your name, either.

  • DJ Drummond

    Sorry JimX, but the voices in your head don’t count as “the majority of economists and economic historians”.

  • iwogisdead

    jim x still wants to blame Bush. I suggest that Obama continue to do just that. It will expose him for the lightweight he is.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Sorry DJ, but things that prove you wrong are much more substantial.

    As I’ve quoted at least 5 times elsewhere on this site, and I’m sure you’ve previous read yourself DJ, the majority of nonpartisan economists and economic historians actually means:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression

    In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, Whaples sent out anonymous questionnaires to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: “Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression.” … 74% of those who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright.

    Now, would you care to dispute that, with a source that has performed a similar or even comparable study?

    Or would you care to display the integrity to admit that you were wrong?

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    DJ, you apparently missed the entire point of # 29. I am not declaring what is or isn’t a centrist President. I’m trying to get a bead on what a centrist President means to Rodney.

    But, let’s say all those questions suck just as bad as you state. That’s fine, I’m not attached to them.

    DJ, how would you define separates a “centrist” President from a Right-wing President?

    How is a centrist different from a right-wing President, in terms of the actual policies they would pursue?

  • cirby

    jim x:
    But if you look at the US economy and the government spending that was sustaining it while the US was recovering from the Great Depression, there’s a clear and significant dip in the economy that directly correlates with the government spending reduction that Morgenthau pushed.

    Except that the dip in 1937/38 was more probably tied to several other factors, like the tightening of the money supply, along with the massive increases in military spending and international tensions worldwide.

    World War II wasn’t really a big surprise. Most of the European countries were preparing for a big war – most of them just did a really bad job at it and weren’t ready for it to happen so soon or in such a widespread manner. But the signs were there, and they were influencing government policies worldwide from the early 1930s onward.

    During the middle 1930s, a bunch of the world economy was shifting over to prepping for Yet Another War, and by 1937/38, most of the business people saw the swastikas on the wall. They were cutting back already, and when that ran into the various strikes and labor issues of 1937/1938, it caused the actual drop in the economy, along with a big jump in unemployment.

    You should also note that a good bit of the US expansion from 1933-37 came from selling goods to the European countries that were looking at a newly resurgent Germany (along with a militant USSR, not to mention the ongoing Japan/China war that had kicked off in 1931). Germany had expanded the number of divisions in its army from 31 in 1935 to 71 in 1937.

    One last thing to remember: John Maynard Keynes, the man whose theories kicked off so much government spending, was quick to mention that a government that is deep in debt should NOT go further in debt to “fix” its economy – it’s only healthy, relatively debt-free economies that could get a boost from Keynesian spending practices… but people ignore that bit nowadays until it bites them in the ass.

  • epador

    Not unexpectedly, the Obama administration places Israel on a terrorism supporting country list?!?!?

  • Sep14

    Wow jim x, that impressive.

    Woop like numbers yet you still plod along in a kool-aide induced stupor. You’re as daft as Barry..

  • http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com jim x

    Just trying to find out how you guys distinguish a centrist President from a right-wing President, in terms of policies.

    Anyone?

  • DJ Drummond

    I have to say, Jim X, you sure don’t let reality or facts slow you down. You have been shown that your “questions” were invalid in terms of defining a centrist President, but you just ignored that and stayed on your script from whatever Troll.org sent you your orders.

    You have been reminded that claiming government sustains the US economy is literally impossible, yet you defiantly claimed not only that you were right (well, let’s say ‘correct’, you take obvious offense at anything ‘right’, I bet when you’re heading north and need to turn east, you make three left turns to avoid having to turn right) but that a majority of experts agree with you, and for support you post one link – and that was to Wikipedia (LMOOAO!).

    You were shown that under Obama’s policies, his unemployment was worse than in ANY of the Bush years (and given a link to a government site, not a toss-off snotworthy place like Wiki), and nearly double on average, but you quickly regrouped and pretended Bush somehow caused Obama’s wreck.

    You have been proben wrong, dishonest, immature, ill-informed, uneducated, and utterly addicted to leftist propaganda … but you have made it clear that you are proud to be all those things.

    You are, however accidentally, comedy gold!

  • boqueronman

    As usual when dealing with Prog-lodytes, you have to review some actual history:

    1. Yes, Hoover may uncharitably be described as “insane.” But that’s because he was a card carrying Progressive. He learned his trade as head of the U.S. reconstruction effort in Europe after WWI. And his response to the economic depression (which FDR made Great) was a massive increase in government “assistance.” As Walter Russell Mead pointed out recently: “His Reconstruction Finance Corporation would be taken over by FDR; it lent money to distressed companies in an effort to jump start the economy. He proposed the creation of a federal Department of Education; he was willing to countenance significant budget deficits and supported important public works projects (like Boulder Dam) as a way of stimulating employment and rebuilding confidence in the economy.” For a view of a free market response to recession go back and take a look at 1920-21. Finished in 18 months. FDR? Couldn’t make progress in 8 years, with a head start in Progressive intervention from Hoover. Is Obama the new Hoover?

    2. The 1937 depression? Here’s a slice of FDR’s inaugural address early that year. “Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.” Yeah, that’s an incentive to risk your capital in a long-term investment! And here’s the result of anti-free market rhetoric, to say nothing of policies, at ground level from a diary by lawyer David Roth written in June of that year: “we are having a bad mill strike in Youngstown and the mills have closed… There has been a complete breakdown of law and order. Business is very quiet.”

    3. And, of course, the old wive’s tale that FDR’s New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression. Bwahahahaha! As Morgenthau points out by any investment, production and employment measure, most especially a comparison with Coolidge’s economy, an actual economic recovery was not yet achieved by late 1930s. A quick glance at the history books will show that a world war began in 1939. At that point industrial production was ramped up and the preparations for an eventual entry into the war were begun. By 1942 private industrial production had almost ceased – for example only 5,000 automobiles were manufactured and sold during the war – and million of working age men and women were employed for war. The Great Depression ended after the war ceased. Unfortunately for the Prog-lodytes, bank balances remained steady, war bonds were sold… and bought; and money velocity (turnover) remained constant. Sorry, no Keynesian boost here! No, what happened was the truly insane depression era controls were lifted, private property rights looked safe, pent up demand certainly did exist and, in spite of material constraints, the economy expanded by 30% in 1946, spurred by an optimistic public from current savings. And FDR and his New Deal were dead and buried.

  • Pingback: Investors Business Daily Opines: Romney is Right | Wizbang

  • Pingback: Taking it to the Voters | Wizbang

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE