Archive for the ‘Keynesian Theory of Economics’ Category

OBAMA AND THE LUNATIC LEFT

Sunday, September 11th, 2011

> President and his followers intend to end America’s greatness
> By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
>
> The Washington Times  > Thursday, September 8, 2011
>
> President Obama is politically insane. This is the real meaning of his speech Thursday night in front of a joint session of Congress. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. By that definition, Mr. Obama is a lunatic leftist.
>
> Much of his speech called for more of the same – government activism; massive spending on infrastructure, bridges and roads; extending the payroll tax cut; and more public aid to states and municipalities. In short, he seeks to perpetuate the dismal policies of Obamanomics. He is a reckless ideologue masquerading as a pragmatist.
>
> Mr. Obama’s presidency has been dominated by one seminal reality – failure. His nearly $1 trillion stimulus; record budget deficits; unprecedented levels of public spending; the government bailouts of the auto, insurance, housing and banking sectors; billions heaped on “green jobs”; Obamacare; Dodd-Frank to reform Wall Street, and huge outlays for food stamps and unemployment benefits – all have failed to restore the economy.
>
> In fact, they have done the opposite. Unemployment is 9.1 percent. Growth is anemic. In August, no new net jobs – none – were created. Consumer confidence is low. Inflation is rising. The value of the dollar plummets. Burdensome regulations are strangling business. America is being buried under a mountain of debt. For the first time in history, its credit rating has been downgraded. The country is not only on the verge of national bankruptcy, but of economic collapse.
>
> Any reasonable person would change course – but not Mr. Obama. He is a big-government liberal who worships at the altar of statism. The fact that we are broke and can no longer afford his borrow-and-spend policies means nothing. Like all fanatics, he is disconnected from reality. (more…)

Share

PRESIDENT ZERO

Saturday, September 10th, 2011
Published on The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com)

Read his lips: No new jobs.

Fred Barnes

September 12, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 48
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  It’s worth noting these programs are temporary and targeted. The president prefers that approach. It has the value of keeping the government in control. Permanent, broad-based tax rate cuts for individuals and corporations would shift control to the private sector. This was the Ronald Reagan approach. It spurred a stronger and quicker economic recovery than Obama’s efforts have.

‘The simplest question,” Dick Cheney writes in his memoir In My Time, “is the most important one.” He mentions this in the context of asking how many American nukes were aimed at Kiev during the Cold War. For President Obama, with job growth stuck near zero, the simplest question is a domestic one. How do you think jobs are created?

This has never been asked of Obama and never answered, so far as I know. And chances are he won’t answer it definitively when he unveils his new jobs program before a joint session of Congress this week.

But there are big clues from his prior policies and the batch of ideas now emanating from the White House. The president believes government is the premier job creator. Why? One reason is government understands markets better than the private sector, so long as the right people are in charge, like Obama himself.

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks,” he said at a town hall meeting in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, on August 15. “As gas prices keep going up, you’ve got to understand the market.” Having bailed out Chrysler and GM, he instructed them to invest in electric cars and added, “We put investments” in advanced batteries. “It creates jobs.”

There you have it. U.S. auto companies would be producing more SUVs and trucks, both popular with car buyers, and fewer electric cars if Obama hadn’t intervened. That practically nobody, except the federal government, is lining up to buy electric cars—that’s seemingly irrelevant to the president. What’s important is that Obama—government—knows what’s best for the future of the auto industry. (more…)

Share

OBAMA AND THE BURDEN OF EXCEPTIONALISM

Friday, September 2nd, 2011
The Wall Street Journal

  • SEPTEMBER 1, 2011

Post-’60s liberals, with the president as their standard bearer, seek to make a virtue of decline.

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a hundred times: President Obama is destroying the country. Some say this destructiveness is intended; most say it is inadvertent, an outgrowth of inexperience, ideological wrong-headedness and an oddly undefined character. Indeed, on the matter of Mr. Obama’s character, today’s left now sounds like the right of three years ago. They have begun to see through the man and are surprised at how little is there.

Yet there is something more than inexperience or lack of character that defines this presidency: Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-’60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America’s exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America’s greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom.

Mr. Obama did not explicitly run on an anti-exceptionalism platform. Yet once he was elected it became clear that his idea of how and where to apply presidential power was shaped precisely by this brand of liberalism. There was his devotion to big government, his passion for redistribution, and his scolding and scapegoating of Wall Street—as if his mandate was somehow to overcome, or at least subdue, American capitalism itself. (more…)

Share

OBAMANOMICS VS REAGANOMICS

Friday, August 26th, 2011
  • The Wall Street Journal

  • AUGUST 26, 2011

One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn’t.

By STEPHEN MOORE

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama’s economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan’s third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and ’84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would “overheat.” In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a “double-dip” recession. By the end of Reagan’s first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn’t.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the “supply side” of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.

Ronald Reagan talks taxes, 1981.

stevemoore

The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down. (more…)

Share

HOW NOT TO GROW AN ECONOMY

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011
The Wall Street Journal

  • AUGUST 21, 2011, 7:41 P.M. ET

A week in the life of the Obama recovery.

  • Financial markets are in turmoil, investors are fleeing to safe havens, and the chances of another recession are rising. This would seem to be a moment when government should be especially careful to do no harm, to talk and walk softly, and to reassure business that Washington wants more private investment and hiring.

But this is not how our current government behaves. Day after day brings headlines of another legislative, regulatory or enforcement action that gives CEOs and investors reason to hunker down, retain as much cash as possible and ride out whatever storms are ahead. This is not the way to nurture an already fragile recovery, much less help the economy to endure shocks from Europe, natural disasters or a big bank failure.

Consider the headlines only from last week, a slow week by Washington standards, with Congress out of session and President Obama campaigning for three days before going on vacation. Even in the dog days of August, your government was hard at work undermining economic confidence.

• Monday: “Warren Buffett right about taxes, says Obama.” The week began with a one-two tax punch from Warren Buffett and President Obama. The Omaha stock-picker wrote an op-ed begging Congress to raise taxes on millions of Americans who make less than he does, and the President used the first stop of his bus tour, in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, to agree.

“I put a deal before the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, that would have solved this problem,” Mr. Obama said, “and he walked away because his belief was we can’t ask anything of millionaires and billionaires and big corporations in order to close our deficit.” So America’s main job creators are still on notice that a tax increase is in their future in 2013, if not sooner.

Tuesday: “Federal mortgage role to be preserved: Obama is working to develop new housing policy.” A Washington Post story reported that Mr. Obama has directed a White House team to develop a housing plan that would keep the feds deeply involved in mortgage markets, with subsidies and loan guarantees, perhaps even preserving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (more…)

Share

LESSON FROM EUROPE

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011
The Wall Street Journal

  • AUGUST 16, 2011

Lesson From Europe (Take 2)

No, social democracy doesn’t ‘work.’

  • By BRET STEPHENS

  • ‘The real lesson from Europe,” wrote Paul Krugman in January 2010, “is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.” Here are some postcards from the social democracy that works.
• In Britain, 239 patients died of malnutrition in the country’s public hospitals in 2007, according to a charity called Age U.K. And at any given time, a quarter-million Britons have been made to wait 18 weeks or longer for medical treatment. This follows a decade in which funding for the National Health Service doubled.

• In France, the incidence of violent crimes rose by nearly 15% between 2002 and 2008, according to statistics provided by Eurostat. In Italy violent crime was up 38%. In the EU as a whole, the rate rose by 6% despite declines in robbery and murder.

• As of June 2011, Eurostat reports that the unemployment rate in the euro zone was 9.9%. For the under-25s, it was 20.3%. In Spain, youth unemployment stands at 45.7%, which tops even the Greek rate of 38.5%. Then there’s this remarkable detail: Among Europeans aged 18-34, no fewer than 46%—51 million people in all—live with their parents.

Rioters in London: Poster children for social democracy.

gloview0816

• In 2009, 37.4% of European children were born outside of marriage. That’s more than twice the 1990 rate of 17.4%. The number of children per woman for the EU is 1.56, catastrophically below the replacement rate of 2.1. Roughly half of all Europeans belong in the “dependency” category on account of their youth or old age. Just 64% of the working-age population actually works.

I could go on in this vein for pages, but you get the point. Europe is not a happy place and hasn’t been for nearly a generation. It’s about to get much worse. (more…)

Share

WHAT HAPPENED TO OBAMA? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Saturday, August 13th, 2011
The Wall Street Journal

  • AUGUST 13, 2011

He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president.

It’s open season on President Obama. Which is to say that the usual suspects on the right (among whom I include myself) are increasingly being joined in attacking him by erstwhile worshipers on the left. Even before the S&P downgrade, there were reports of Democrats lamenting that Hillary Clinton had lost to him in 2008. Some were comparing him not, as most of them originally had, to Lincoln and Roosevelt but to the hapless Jimmy Carter. There was even talk of finding a candidate to stage a primary run against him. But since the downgrade, more and more liberal pundits have been deserting what they clearly fear is a sinking ship.

Here, for example, from the Washington Post, is Richard Cohen: “He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance—the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is.” More amazingly yet Mr. Cohen goes on to say of Mr. Obama, who not long ago was almost universally hailed as the greatest orator since Pericles, that he lacks even “the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians.” And to compound the amazement, Mr. Cohen tells us that he cannot even “recall a soaring passage from a speech.”

Overseas it is the same refrain. Everywhere in the world, we read in Germany’s Der Spiegel, not only are the hopes ignited by Mr. Obama being dashed, but his “weakness is a problem for the entire global economy.”

In short, the spell that Mr. Obama once cast—a spell so powerful that instead of ridiculing him when he boasted that he would cause “the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal,” all of liberaldom fell into a delirious swoon—has now been broken by its traumatic realization that he is neither the “god” Newsweek in all seriousness declared him to be nor even a messianic deliverer.

Hence the question on every lip is—as the title of a much quoted article in the New York Times by Drew Westen of Emory University puts it— “What Happened to Obama?” Attacking from the left, Mr. Westin charges that President Obama has been conciliatory when he should have been aggressively pounding away at all the evildoers on the right. (more…)

Share

A DOWNGRADE AWAKENING

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011
The Wall Street Journal

  • AUGUST 9, 2011

Amid the market wreckage, signs of a political turn.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  The downgrade uproar and even the market turmoil are signs that Americans aren’t about to accept economic decline gracefully. To adapt a famous phrase, a debt crisis is a terrible thing to waste
  • During yesterday’s market meltdown, an old friend shot us an email: “The Obama adm needs to stop trying to disarm the fire alarm and start trying to put the fire out.”

Good advice that, not that President Obama followed it during his midday remarks at the White House. Instead, he poured on some lighter fluid, blaming Republicans and Standard & Poor’s for S&P’s credit downgrade while remonstrating that both parties nonetheless had to work together. He also repeated his familiar agenda that more spending now and higher taxes later will fire up the economy and restore America’s financial standing.

The Dow promptly fell another hundred points before tumbling 5.5% on the day. It was ugly out there. The S&P downgrade was a psychological shock, a slap in the face, and markets are naturally in for a rough ride.

But we think it’s also worth stepping back from the daily turmoil to look at the larger picture. To wit, the current U.S. debt debate isn’t a sign of American political “dysfunction,” despite what S&P, the Chinese (see below) and various sages are saying. It’s a sign that we’re finally beginning to comprehend and correct the problem. The process will be messy, as democracy always is, but the brawling is a sign of progress.  (more…)

Share

LIMBAUGH ON MARKET COLLAPSE

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Newsmax

Limbaugh on Market Collapse:

Obama Engineering the Decline of

America

Monday, August 8, 2011 06:17 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Top-rated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh finds a “silver lining” in the downgrading of America’s credit rating: There no longer is any doubt that President Barack Obama can be roundly defeated in 2012.

“Obamageddon — that’s what we have witnessed since Friday,” Rush told his listeners on Monday.

“Obamageddon. Barackalypse Now. The only silver lining I can find is that as far as 2012 goes, Obama’s a Debt Man Walking. Anybody want to tell me he’s not landslidable now?

“Let me repeat this as the Media Tweak of the Day: ‘What we have witnessed since Friday is Obamageddon, Barackalypse Now. And the only silver lining out there is that as far as 2012 goes, Obama’s now Debt Man Walking.”

In his blistering attack on Obama and the Democrats, Limbaugh asserted that “we have a president that’s overseeing — engineering — the decline of the American republic.”

He also charged that Democrats are trying to play the blame game against Republicans over the financial crisis.

“Obama is always running around complaining and whining and moaning about all that he inherited from George W. Bush,” Rush said.

“Well, he inherited a AAA credit rating, an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent.

(more…)

Share

THE PECULIAR MADNESS OF PAUL KRUGMAN

Sunday, August 7th, 2011


REAL CLEAR POLITICS
August 6, 2011

By Robert Tracinski

The debt deal unhinged the left.

No, the Tea Parties did not win, as the left has been saying. The spending “cuts” only limit the additional growth of government, and they are too small and too distant to be worth celebrating. But the left is correct about one thing: they lost, because the debt deal established the idea that there would be no more tax increases and no big new spending programs. And the left does not exactly have a record of being gracious political losers.

As usual, no one was more unhinged than Paul Krugman. To be sure, his New York Times colleague Joe Nocera established a new apex of civil political discourse when he denounced Republicans as jihadist terrorists. But that’s just a lot of angry venting and empty invective. By contrast, Krugman brings to this debate a peculiar kind of madness. What was really unhinged was the substance of his response, the solution that he thinks the nation needs to follow.

In a blistering column, Krugman lashed out at the Obama administration, declaring that “we are not now and have never been on the road to recovery” and that “the economic policy of the past two years” “isn’t working.”

Yet he was attacking Obama, not for pushing through too much “stimulus” spending, nor for printing too much money, nor for piling up too much debt–but for doing too little of these things. He argues for an even bigger stimulus, for government to “support the economy in its time of need” and to be the sole source of growth. He snarls: where else is growth going to come from? And yes, for him, that’s supposed to be a rhetorical question.

This is not, by itself, Krugman’s peculiar madness. The peculiar madness of Paul Krugman is that he presents all of this as if it were sensible and self-evidently true and requires no argument. He presents it as if the only thing preventing others from seeing the truth is blind political obstructionism (for the Republicans) or cowardice (for the Democrats).

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories