-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
Political Hay
Democrat Economic Illiteracy Has Consequences
Obamaworld’s breathtaking ignorance about “the dismal science” is dangerous.
The Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, visited Capitol Hill last week and claimed that the unemployment rate will increase if Congress fails to extend the eligibility period for federal unemployment benefits. My first reaction to this Orwellian assertion was a quiet chuckle. Then it dawned on me that most Democrats will believe this nonsense. These are, after all, people who believed that health care would be made cheaper by a law that increases demand for medical services while reducing the supply of health care providers. Most would agree with the claim, made by journalist-cum-cheerleader Jonathan Alter, that Obama’s economic stimulus package “prevented another Great Depression.” I realized, in other words, that ignorance about economics is so pervasive among Democrats that it is less funny than dangerous.
That Democrats are generally illiterate about basic economics is not a matter of mere conjecture. In 2010, Daniel B. Klein and Zeljka Buturovic analyzed answers provided by a random sample of 4,835 Americans to a list of eight questions about economics. The results, which noted the party affiliation of the respondents, were not flattering to our friends on the left. “Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.” And these were not arcane questions. They involved elementary concepts, like the effect of price controls, covered in any Econ 101 course taught at the lowliest community college and even some of the better high schools. Yet the average Democrat respondent got nearly 60 percent of the answers wrong.
It is precisely this kind of ignorance that led so many Democrats to believe Obamacare would somehow render health care less expensive. One of the first items covered in any introductory economics course is that the price of any good or service will rise if the quantity demanded increases without an accompanying increase in the available supply of that commodity. Nonetheless, it held no message for the average Democrat that the supply side of the equation was ignored by “reform,” though it increased the number of patients in the health system as well as the range of services to which they are entitled. The issue of supply and demand was utterly lost on Obamacare’s Democrat supporters. Thus, at the time of its passage, fully 78 percent of them favored the law. Even now, 52 percent still support it.
Democrat cluelessness notwithstanding, the laws of supply and demand continue to operate. In fact, even the Obama administration has produced a report showing that “reform” will increase health care costs faster than would have been the case in its absence. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently forecast that “Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8 percent under Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act…. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7 percent annually.” Survey after survey has shown that one of the primary benefits Americans wanted from health reform was lower costs. Due to Democrat illiteracy in economics, however, Congress has produced a “reform” law that actually makes medical care more expensive.
Even if Obamacare didn’t ignore the laws of supply and demand, a rudimentary understanding of economics should have alerted any educated observer that it was going to be disastrous for the country because it creates perverse incentives that discourage job growth. The law arbitrarily increases the cost of hiring and keeping employees. George Will recently provided an example of how this works, citing a California-based business called CKE Restaurants. Obamacare will add about $18 million to its costs: “Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants. And therefore fewer jobs. Each restaurant creates, on average, 25 jobs — and as much as 3.5 times that number of jobs in the community (CKE spends about $1 billion a year on food and paper products, $175 million on advertising, $33 million on maintenance, etc.).”
In other words, the job losses at CKE are accompanied by collateral losses in the communities they serve. This phenomenon is being replicated all across the country. And yet most Democrats seem to be as blissfully unaware of this tragedy as they are of the impotence of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA). Like Obamacare, this legislation is actually producing the opposite of its intended effect. The “stimulus” package is rendering the economy more flaccid than it would be if the law had never been passed. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has now admitted that the additional debt added by ARRA “will reduce output slightly in the long run.” Yet, last week, we witnessed the grotesque spectacle of the President dancing in the end zone because unemployment has at long last dropped below 9 percent.
According to Secretary Solis, this long-overdue decrease in the unemployment number means that “The policies this administration has pursued are adding jobs back into the economy.” Not everyone concurs. NPR reports: “[E]conomists say one reason [the rate] fell isn’t good news — the size of the labor force shrank by 315,000 as more people stopped looking for work because they’re discouraged about the chances of finding a job.” And if you doubt the veracity of those notorious wingnuts at NPR, Gallup also suggests that the “improvement” was illusory : “Job market conditions in the United States were flat in November, as Gallup’s Job Creation Index remained at +14, similar to the range seen since May. This is another indication that Friday’s sharp drop to 8.6% in the government’s U.S. unemployment rate may be overstated.”
Nonetheless, the President, congressional Democrats and most of the “news” media celebrated the modest drop in the official jobless percentage with a level of glee reminiscent of V-E Day. The New York Times, for example, breathlessly announced, “Somehow the American economy appears to be getting better, even as the rest of the world is looking worse.” Predictably, the Times went on to promote the White House party line on the extension of unemployment payments: “Unemployment benefits are believed to have one of the most stimulative effects on the economy, because recipients are likely to spend all of the money they receive quickly and pump more spending through the economy.” The only people who “believe” this are, of course, Democrat supporters of the President and his accomplices in Congress.
In reality, consumer spending doesn’t stimulate the economy. This is a Keynesian canard that was long ago debunked in theory and by actual experience. It is production that stimulates the U.S. or any other economy. This is the inconvenient fact that doomed ARRA and it is what makes the Labor Secretary’s assertion so laughable. Extending the eligibility period for federal unemployment benefits will do nothing for what Democrats and the Media hilariously refer to as the economy. But it will have an effect. Like Obamacare and the “stimulus” package, it will produce the opposite of its intended effect. Another lesson one learns in Econ 101 is that, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. So, if unemployment benefits are extended, it will produce more rather than less unemployment.
And yet our Labor Secretary is by no means the first of Obama’s minions to tell us that unemployment payments somehow create jobs. Last summer White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed it would create a million jobs. Solis, Carney, and the Democrats on Capitol Hill who are now singing the same refrain are — one prays — not dumb enough to believe this stuff. But their supporters do, and that’s what makes them dangerous. If their ignorance about economics causes them to give President Obama another four years in the White House, the irresponsible policies of his administration may well convert a severe recession into a worldwide depression that will dwarf the disaster of the 1930s and perhaps even reproduce the horrific consequences that followed thereon.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/08/democrat-economic-illiteracy-h
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Great Train Robbery
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Inside the Gates of Eden
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
c. j. acworth| 12.8.11 @ 6:55AM
The thickness of the Democrat Party can be taken as a given, what really hurts is when Republicans go along with them. They talk conservative during the campaign, turn Keynesian in office. As one small example, recall W. laying tariffs on imported steel after only about, what, three weeks in office? Fortunately, we have little to fear on the health care front. No-one calling himself a Rpublican would be so dense as to support anything remotely like Obamacare, would he Gov. Romney. Oh, wait....
coal carrier| 12.8.11 @ 8:06AM
I just heard that the President’s economic taskforce has submitted a plan to stimulate the economy. Everyone will be allowed to stay home from work for the next 6 months. During this time the Treasury Department will be sending everyone checks on a weekly basis. Since everyone is not working they will have plenty of time to spend the money that Obama has sent them. All of this spending will certainly get the economy moving again. If this plan doesn’t work it will be extended for another 6 months. If this still doesn’t work Obama will go directly to the people and let them know that the reason the economy is not getting better is due to the Republicans and the rich.
Alan Brooks| 12.8.11 @ 8:43AM
Then why don't we do this:
end all government benefits for Republicans.
If they are hungry, they can eat cat food- when you're really hungry, Kibbles 'n' Bits tastes like caviar.
MikeBee| 12.8.11 @ 9:44AM
Uh, Alan,
That's already happening. More and more, Democrat supporters include those who rely on some sort of government handout for their existence, while Republican supporters include those who send Revenues to the U.S. Treasury, so that those Democrats can receive their checks.
Richard H. Davis| 12.8.11 @ 12:42PM
Being an economic literate Republican, you presumably know that most of the "blue" states send more to the Federal government than they receive, and that most of the "red" states receive more than they send. Doesn't this undercut your argument, somewhat???
Thomas Paine| 12.8.11 @ 1:13PM
No. It merely tells us that defense spending -- bases, missile silos -- and other Federal dollars are not evenly distributed ...
... and that INCOME is skewed higher, producing more tax revenue, in "Blue States" which have an EVEN HIGHER Cost of Living.
Here's the income by State:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....._by_income
Here's the cost of living by State:
http://www.missourieconomy.org...../index.stm
Q.E.D.
squalis| 12.8.11 @ 9:55AM
Why don't we do this: Enact policies that actually grow the economy and create jobs. Then, when an individual's benefits expire, they have a job to apply for, start to work and live on their own dime, not mine or anyone elses. Oh wait, then they see how much Federal tax is taken and they won't vote for the party that wants to increase those taxes....never mind.
Indiana Alex| 12.8.11 @ 9:58AM
I would like to thank you, and every other moron of your ilk that prove the point of the article with your attempt at making some sort of point.
You people are truely becoming paradies of yourselves.
Thomas Paine| 12.8.11 @ 1:16PM
Parody.
Did you take spelling at a government-run school...?
Let's see, what else?
1. Ad hominem attack. Check.
2. Zero refutation of actual point. Check.
3. Division ("You people"). Check.
Folks, I think we have a DEMOCRAT here!
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 6:40PM
That's funny, a guy with a name just like yours founded radical sociology way back in the 18th century.
JmsA| 12.8.11 @ 10:25AM
Continued, non-sequitur idiocy.
JmsA| 12.8.11 @ 10:32AM
Continued non-sequitur idiocy. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
David W| 12.8.11 @ 12:28PM
Al,
Kind of miss the point again. If you subsidize something you get more of it. Perfect example - I didn't proceed with applying for a "bridge" job because, even though I would get $38/hour, my hours would be such that I would make less than I did on unemployment. So I waited until a permanent job came along.
Unfortunately, many true conservatives (note I don't say Republicans, since some are almost as bad as the Democrats) don't get any benefits - that is taken up by the Democrats/liberals/socialists/society leeches. Why do you think so many government programs are fraught with fraud/corruption/waste (even in the defense area)?
Unfortunately, because of the economic slavery liberals/progressives/Democrats have created in this country, it will be difficult to wean the "have nots" off the government teat and to convince them that life will be better if they actually work for a living and not try to live off the fruits of others' labors. True, there are circumstances beyond our control. But that is where the now extinct (thanks to liberals) social network of family, churches, and communities would have been able to help.
Thomas Paine| 12.8.11 @ 1:19PM
At this point I'm stuck hoping Europe collapses. It will hurt like Hell over here, but there are too many economic idiots including Obama who have to actually SEE the results of Socialism and Soft Fascism to get the friggin point....
Tim the Enchanter| 12.8.11 @ 1:52PM
Wouldn't matter if they did. He would still refuse to get the point, or blame it on something else. Deception is an act of the will.
Bob S| 12.8.11 @ 2:04PM
If Europe collapses, it will because they did not do it correctly. Not to worry, because we know how to do it the right way.
Randy131| 12.8.11 @ 3:05PM
What a pipe dream you're professing. Europe has many countries, each with their own type of socialism, for which those who are deep in that type of government, are the ones who are collapsing the fastest, but all with that type of government is on the verge of collapsing, being held up by those countries of Eurpoe that have the best free market systems and as little socialism as possible. But being that they have created a Union, they will all eventually collapse, or the Union will, one or the other, for never in the history of the world has a social or communist government remained successful and long endured. And Europe is proving there are no exceptions, yet down that failed path we go, led by the change promised by Obama and the Democrats, which Obama just gave a speech declaring that limited government and free markets have never worked, despite the 235 years of history of the USA, with the same government and economic system, until Obama became President with a Democratically controlled Congress.
markenoff| 12.8.11 @ 5:51PM
While, at the same time, removing all Republicans from the tax rolls.
Brian Mc| 12.8.11 @ 7:08AM
Is anyone following the money? That stimulus spending ended up in all the wrong places, most likely, with a big "D" attached in one way or another. And, if that is the case, nothing productive came of it but, hey, that's OK...it was all intended for the good, wasn't it? Anyone?
MikeBee| 12.8.11 @ 9:53AM
Brian,
You're right. Most of the stimulus money was given to state governments, so that they didn't have to downsize or lay anyone off (e.g., the state of Michigan received about $2B in the stimulus package). Most of those working for governments vote "D" in elections, to protect their union jobs. So, the Stimulus package was, indeed, a giveback to Democrat supporters.
I am a financial professional. It is textbook knowledge that a government should do two things in a recession: 1) decrease taxes, and 2) increase some spending to stimulate the economy. After 9/11/2001, W lowered taxes and increased spending. But, the spending was targeted at the private sector, increasing contracts to the private sector. For example, the Post Office at the time put a contract out to build 120,000 semi trucks to replace their aging fleet. International Truck won the bidding, and a bunch of people went to work for many years, both at International Truck and at all their supply base, to produce these trucks. I know because I worked at the time at a supplier to International Truck, and saw our hiring increase, due to this contract.
The Obama administration did NOT lower taxes, but DID increase spending. However, their spending, as mentioned above, was all targeted to governmental bodies, to save Democrat jobs.
Thomas Paine| 12.8.11 @ 1:22PM
Excellent analysis and example.
I'd add that the rubes in DC (and at the NYT, I mean you, PAUL) are using COMPLETELY FAILED MULTIPLIER THEORY.
Time to put the pencils down, gentlemen. Mr. Obama, listen up: BIG GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK.
Didn't they teach Economics at Harvard Law?
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/exh-4.gif
TrueBlue| 12.9.11 @ 1:25PM
They taught Ethics too, but I think they either skipped those classes, or listened only until they could figure out how to game the system... assuming the professors didn't teach them that too.
JAWilson| 12.8.11 @ 7:18AM
A lot of this economic illiteracy evolved from the dot com bubble where economic reality was suspended by the irrational exuberance that Greenspan referred to in his congressional testimony. A lot of economic illiterates made ungodly amounts of money and they believed their own stuff. Now there is a bubble that I can hardly wait to burst, but the academic world will reform before those dopes come down to earth.
Thomas Paine| 12.8.11 @ 1:24PM
Not to mention 10% annual Money Supply growth.
Greenspan blew the bubbles, Bernanke popped the last one. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.8.11 @ 7:24AM
Now that Dodd-Frank has started to take effect the banking industry is starting the first round of massive layoffs.
You don't hear any of the candidates connecting the dots on the layoffs and the passage and implementation of Dodd-Frank.
Makes you wonder if many of those Republican candidates are liberals at heart with little understanding of basic economics:
http://www.fool.com/investing/.....-pink.aspx
I wish I could say that Citigroup (NYSE: C ) was going pink for charity, but that's simply not the case.
Last night, following the market close, Citigroup joined a long line of financial firms in announcing layoffs, which are scheduled to begin taking place over the next few quarters. Getting pink slips will be 4,500 Citigroup employees, with Citi expected to take a severance charge in the upcoming quarter of $400 million. Also of note, Citi expects an additional $500 million hit to revenue based on a charge it must take regarding its high levels of debt.
As macroeconomic Foolish magnate Morgan Housel noted yesterday, around 500,000 financial jobs have been lost since 2006 and this is a trend that appears likely to continue. Earlier this year, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ) announced a sweeping reform that would include laying off 30,000 workers. Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS ) had previously announced it would lay off 1,000 workers from its investment banking division, but that figure is looking like a lowball estimate at present. Others that have announced recent layoffs include JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM ) , Credit Suisse (NYSE: CS ) , UBS (NYSE: UBS ) , and the Royal Bank of Scotland (NYSE: RBS )
John Daniel| 12.8.11 @ 7:35AM
Elect no one who has never had to make a payroll....
VonMisesJr| 12.8.11 @ 8:07AM
The first rule of economics is "there are no free lunches." But Democrats are identified by their greed and envy, or their hubris. So they simply refuse to accept that "there are no free lunches."
Bastiat wrote about "That which is seen, and that which is not seen" around 1800. It is the foundation of the "Broken Window Fallacy." The learned Democrats know this, but it is a political trick to fool the stupid. And it still works over 200 years later.
Stan Redmond| 12.8.11 @ 7:07PM
It's free when someone else is paying for it...
Dave | 12.8.11 @ 8:20AM
On the subject of economics (alone) Canton's column this morning is basic AND brilliant. Its subject matter should be mandatory reading for anyone with two confirmed brain cells to rub together. Unfortunately, as my wise ol' farm raised momma used to say: "Son, 'ya can lead 'yer horse to water, but 'ya can't make 'em drink." In connecting the dots, I suppose you could make the same comment regarding the ignorant. Or as I prefer to call them: Today's Democrat. Unfortunately for the rest of us in Mayberry, the only liquid those people have been drinking is purple Kool Aid.
This coming election sets-up a critical opportunity to make or break us. That's not Chicken Little clucking; just an opinion from the south forty. For now, though, I'll be drinkin' my eight glasses of water a day. I'll leave the purple stuff for Pelosi.
bill| 12.8.11 @ 8:20AM
Democrat Party is run by the SEIU thugs.
Dems want socialism and seek to demonize the free enterprise and the free people.
Dems lie and rife the election.
Dems in power means despair, recession, deficit, debt, unemployment, OWS, corruption, and lies.
DEFEAT ALL DEMOCRATS.
Rhoetus | 12.8.11 @ 12:53PM
True, but George W. Bush was LBJ with a human face.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.8.11 @ 8:34AM
I'm getting tired of reading these stories. Democrats are NOT Illiterate, where Economics is concerned. They're not Naive. They're not Ignorant or Misinformed. And they definitely DO NOT have the "Best of Intentions" when they do what they do.
Obama has a Paper Trail. Obama has a Record. He voted to the LEFT of Bernie Sanders, while in the Senate. He has BOOKS. Unlike his Administration, The One is Very Transparent. Unlike the protestations of his Sycophants in the Media (Tom Brokaw/Charlie Rose) this guy is an Open Book.
Here we go again: His Parents, His Grandparents. His Upbringing in Muslim Indonesia for the first 11 Years of his life. His Mentors, his associations, his days at school. "I sought out the MARXIST Professors". His Cabinet, his Czars, his Wife.
And, now, we have it from The Horse's Mouth. "Those who believe that a Free Market Capitalist System, with a Limited Government, works, are MISTAKEN. It doesn't work. It has NEVER worked."
Case Closed.
SIEG HEIL!
VonMisesJr| 12.8.11 @ 8:56AM
Timothy, you are correct relative to the Democrat leadership, but the base is mostly ignorant of economics. They are a mob and believe contradictory ideas, chant rote nonsense and believe in worldly messiahs. Ann Coulter describes this in "Demonic" that is based on Gustav Le Bon's "The Crowd." This was based on the Frenchman's critique of the French Revolution.
Obama may be a Ludite when it comes to technology and economics, but he channels Marx and Robespierre in his politics.
Maddox| 12.8.11 @ 9:04AM
Thank you.
tonypal| 12.8.11 @ 1:15PM
Timothy, I'll second what was said below. Obama knows exactly what he's doing. He declared himself a transformative figure and has been true to his word.
However, the average democrat voter is an ignoramus. Moreover, not only do I and others who try to discuss politics know it, but Obama and other democrat politicians know it. There's many examples, but I'll give you my favorite.
Recall during the hearings on Bush's Supreme Court nominees the argument put forth by the Senate's number one scoundrel, Chuck Schumer. He made the most incredible case to his fellow democrats, that due to republican control of both the legislative and executive branches, allowing a conservative majority on the Court would violate the principle of checks and balances. We here at TAS recognize the utter stupidity of this argument, as does Schumer himself. However, Schumer knows very well how this plays with the people who vote for him and his fellow travelers. Of course checks and balances has nothing to do with political parties or affiliations, but to democrats it rings true. It plays on their fears. As we all know, most fears are rooted in ignorance.
I could go on and on. Whether it's social security, the whole issue of "fairness" in the tax code, the proper interpretation of the Constitution, etc., etc. The democrat party survives only to the extent that they can keep enough people stupid. Hence the requirement that they retain a stranglehold on public education and beyond. Stupidity and ignorance is a democrat politician's best friend.
Tom Osterman| 12.8.11 @ 9:00AM
It's not simply that Democrats don't know economics, they simply don't care. The leftists in particular regard the free market as the rest of us regard drug dealing and prostitution, namely a basically immoral, or in their terminology, unjust. Economics 101 only applies to market economies; leftists claim that since socialism is morally superior, it's just a matter of figuring it out. And don't forget Marx himself preached that Capitalism would ultimately self-destruct.
As for most other Democratic politicians, the view taxpayers as sheep to be shorn. The trick is to buy enough votes to keep themselves in office. How the private sector is to manage isn't their problem.
bill| 12.8.11 @ 9:54AM
Democrats are MORON.
Beer f.m.h.| 12.8.11 @ 9:59AM
Catron's article this morning is a good Econ 101 primer, but to understand more deeply the dynamic of what has happened to western economies (including the U.S.) over the last few decades, one needs to also understand the rent-seeking impulse of factions and how indulgent politicians attain power by acceeding to that impulse. The quid pro quo, of course, is the politicans gets votes and stay in power.
I recommend every conservative make a close study of the topic, especially from an historical perspective. It will be hard to escape the conclusion that the end-point of the trend is not going to be pretty, sort of like being in a global methodone ward where a billion people are simultaneoulsy going through withdrawal.
Anthony| 12.8.11 @ 10:28AM
What do you expect from these morons? Afterall, their chief loony economist, Princeton's own Paul Krugman, preaches this crap as well.
When Bush beat Kerry in 04, Krugman had a "personal crisis" and disappeared for 6 months; the cover story was he was working on a economic text book.
Looks like the Obozo administration purchased hundreds of this tome to pass out among Obozo's best and brightest.
And Brooksie got an authgraphed copy.
Al Adab| 12.8.11 @ 10:38AM
They are not illiterate or unknowledgable about economics. It is simply that promoting the lie is to their political advantage as it keeps them in power and their constituant base dependant upon political largesse.
Reagan was too kind when he said, "They simply know so much that isn't true." They don't believe it, they just sel the snake oil for the sake of Power and too many of our fellow citizens sell their birthright for the bowl og government pottage.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 10:39AM
American capitalism took its major hit when it turned away from demand side economics. Personally, I had the opportunity to see and hear Arthur Laffer's supply-side argument (tax cuts and trickle down) in my Econ 500 class at Utah State University (not exactly a liberal college). Our professor quipped afterward, "He must have written his theory on a piece of toilet paper before he used it". America's been running deficits and an increasing national debt ever since.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......ative.html
MikeBee| 12.8.11 @ 10:59AM
L.F.,
Interesting that you point to deficiencies of U.S. government to argue against supply-side economics. It is the U.S. government which operates using a demand-side economic model, by design. This model, running unchecked, is what has caused deficits (more gov't. spending than gov't. receipts) for the U.S. government. It has also caused an increasing national debt, as excess spending must be paid for in some manner.
Pointing to the U.S. government, the largest example of demand-side economics, and its deficits and increasing national debt as an argument FOR demand-side economics is hardly an intellectual exercise.....
No, in contrast, supply-side economics were proven to be immensely successful, promoting a 25-30-year run of economic prosperity for all who wished to participate. In fact, during this time, Revenues to the U.S. government were also at an all-time high. It's time to return to the supply-side economic model.
BTW, it sounds like your econ professor's class syllabus was probably written on a piece of toilet paper before he used it......... Too bad you actually paid good money for that class.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 11:19AM
I don't know where you get your information, but it was Reagan who added 1.8 trillion to the national debt. H.W. Bush added another 1.4 trillion before his son added almost another 5 trillion. To be fair, Clinton added roughly 1.3 trillion. You can verify this yourself if you Google: National Debt by U.S. Presidential Terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....tial_terms
MikeBee| 12.8.11 @ 11:48AM
L.F.,
You're right that spending increased during Reagan's administration. One of the reasons that it increased was because Revenues to the U.S. Treasury were higher, and it is Congress' job to spend Revenues which come in (so, they were spending more because there was more to spend, due to supply-side policies). However, in Reagan's time, Congress consisted mostly of Democrats, who were happy to spend MORE than what came in, causing deficits and increased debt.
During Bush I's presidency, Congress consisted mostly of Democrats, who continued their profligate spending ways, continuing to cause deficits and increase national debt. Republicans didn't win a majority of the House until Clinton was President, in 1994. Even then, it was the slimmest of majorities, and there are plenty of Republicans who spend like the Democrats (we're still trying to clean house). So, during Clinton's presidency, even with a Republican majority, deficit spending continued, causing increasing national debt.
Finally, W came along and had an ever-so-slight Congressional majority of Republicans. But, war broke out (even though they never called it that), and, as everyone knows, deficit spending always increases during war time. This war spending also increased national debt.
Now, Obama is in power with Democrat majorities in the House for his first two years. They increase deficit spending the most ever in history, causing the national debt to skyrocket to dangerous levels.
I'm not debating these facts; they are easy to find, as you demonstrate. There were reasons for all this excessive spending, usually because of Democrats' lack of economic sense, as the author of this article points out. But, using the U.S. Government's deficit and debt problems, which is the greatest example of a demand-side economic model, to argue against supply-side economics just doesn't make any sense. Instead, it actually helps to make the point that we need to turn back to a supply-side economic model again.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 1:57PM
Spending "bills" don't become law until they are signed by The President of The United States. But the point is Supply Side Economics (tax cuts) never has and never will increase revenue. This is because giving tax breaks to business' and the wealthy will not create consumer confidence or increase aggregate demand.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......ative.html
VonMisesJr| 12.8.11 @ 3:22PM
Lyneuss,
If you are not a paid MoveOn nuisance, than you should demand your money back from Utah State. If this is the education you got, then you should join OWS and demand a refund. My son graduated summa cum laude in accounting, and I have an MBA in accounting and read Von Mises and Hayek. Try www.mises.org for an educational experience.
For your information, tax receipts to the Treasury increased from $500B to $1 trillion under Reagan.
The 3 to1 spending cuts never occurred, and that is why the debt increased.
Riddle me this: If demand side theory is that too little demand causes high unemployment and low GDP growth, and too much demand causes inflation; how did we get stagflation in the late 70's.
Perhaps your mummy and daddy didn't tell you about it, but you are about to find out what it was like first hand.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 5:38PM
Actually, for your information VonMisesJr, I was in The USAF during America's runaway spending and stagflation dilemma, so I didn't need mommy and daddy to tell me about it. All of your comments concerning your accounting education (or your son) doesn't change the facts as presented at the government website in my blog above. Again here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....tial_terms
VonMisesJr| 12.9.11 @ 7:37AM
Ignorance is bliss. Propaganda is pernicious.
But you did not answer my riddle. Are you depending on liberal propaganda to avoid answering a simple econimic challenge?
VonMisesJr| 12.9.11 @ 7:44AM
Correction: economic.
Sometimes one makes minor errors when one's brain is faster than mastering the ability to parrot illogical chants.
We will await your personal explanation that has stumped all your Keynesian clowns.
MikeBee| 12.8.11 @ 4:11PM
L.F.,
Actually, John F. Kennedy was one of the first to display the Laffer curve. He cut tax rates during his administration, and Revenues to the Treasury increased. Reagan simply followed Kennedy's example. As VonMisesJr points out, Revenues doubled during Reagan's administration, in direct response, again, to lowering tax rates. G.W.Bush's tax cuts also increased Revenues to the Treasury. All of these increases in Revenues have been adequately documented, and can be easily referenced by yourself. Don't continue to stand in the dark on this issue. As Laffer's curve demonstrates, you can cut tax rates to a point. Up to that point, Revenues will increase, as proven at least three times in our country's history. After that point, the tax cuts are meaningless, and will not increase Revenues any more.
Look at the areas of the world where demand for goods is the highest. There is incredible demand for goods in Third World countries, for example. This demand does not cause any improvements in their countries, like increased employment, or increased wealth. Supply and Demand always work together. If Supply is too high for demand, prices drop significantly; if Demand is too high for Supply, prices increase significantly.
You're right that the POTUS must sign all spending laws. But, ALL spending laws must be generated in the House. This is one of the reasons that Republicans are angry at Obama for his participation in the Libya war. He never had any spending for this war approved by the House. In fact, all he did was take budgeted monies and move them from their intended military use to his war. Also, if all a Democrat House gives a Republican POTUS to sign are higher spending bills, at some point he has to sign something to keep the government running. The excess spending in the Reagan and Bush years were directly caused by House Democrats remitting only higher spending bills. In Reagan's time, Democrats in the House made an agreement with him to cut future spending, in return for signing their budget today. They simply did not keep their promise to Reagan, displaying their dishonesty.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 5:22PM
Your first point is a good one, but Arthur Laffer never consulted with Kennedy. He, like myself, was much too young at the time. Professor Laffer (University of Southern California) worked with President Reagan and communicated his Laffer Curve to demonstrate his bogus theory. It's bogus because regardless of how much taxes are cut for the wealthy and producers, it is aggregate demand from consumers that builds America’s economy. It's interesting to note H.W. Bush (Reagan's V.P.) coined it "Voodoo Economics" at this time.
Last of all, "spending bills" that originate in The House don't become law until they are signed by the President. And as far as a President using any monies for any conflict he deems to be war; I agree that he should seek approval from Congress.
markenoff| 12.8.11 @ 6:09PM
Demand is neither necessary nor sufficient for economic development. For millienia humans had a demand for cheap, durable clothing, a demand so high that clothes were stripped from plague vitims before they were buried. But cheap durable clothing was not supplied until capital was accumulated to finance the development of powered looms to produce cheap durable cloth.
Nobody ever went to Steve Jobs and said, "I'd like a device that will play music that will fit in the palm of my hand" but he developed the iPod anyway without any demand for the product.
We would all like to have flying cars so there is a demand for flying cars. Shouldn't that lead to a supply of flying cars?
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 6:54PM
Obviously, micro-economists might as well forget about supply and demand. What the hell, who needs analysis. Now any bonehead--of coarse this wouldn't be you--can practice their armchair proclamations about entrepreneurs worth billions due to "demand for their ideas" which turned out to be products.
Larry| 12.8.11 @ 9:15PM
I have to say, Lyneuss, you are, if nothing else, persistent. I have previously seen some of the statistics you cite. You and many others keep ignoring one salient fact: Laffer never said his curve was going to curb spending. He only said that if MARGINAL tax rates were lowered, government revenue would actually increase. Which it did, from about 1983-2008 (when the housing bubble broke, and the first recession occurred). Not one government statistic that you can cite to me will refute that fact. In fact, Clinton's own budgets were benefitted by two things: the dot.com revolution and the decrease in capital gains taxes that occurred in 1995. So it is funny you bring him up by way of comparison. The simple fact is, federal government spending has gotten WAY out of control.
Reagan's problem was that he could not persuade enough of the citizenry at the time to make the kinds of fundamental reforms that were necessary to insure that spending stayed within limits. The Democrats controlled Congress; Reagan's ideas and initiatives on Social Security and Medicare were abandoned before the 1984 presidential election because the Democrats were already making same a major political issue for which Republicans had no real support; Jimmy Carter had gutted the defense budget and defense truly needed upgrading (the national security being one of the few reasonable and legitimate things the federal government is supposed to do).
So don't blame the Laffer curve; it has taken an unnecessary pounding, when in fact it actually worked. Only a charlatan would ignore the spending side of this problem while pooh=poohing the revenue side.
MikeBee| 12.9.11 @ 12:39PM
L.F.,
Earlier, I referred to the excessive demand present in Third World countries. I did this for a reason: to display that aggregate demand, without capital, creates nothing. The same is true in the U.S. economy. Demand, in and of itself, can create no wealth or employment, or anything good. The poorest of the poor in this country have very high demand for goods; they don't have capital to back it up, though. Their demand drives nothing in the economy. The availability to Capital is what drives an economy. Take away this availability to Capital, and an economy is shot. Both producers (Supply side) and consumers (Demand side) need Capital to drive an economy. At the point that both sides have adequate access to Capital, now the demand of consumers actually directs the supply of producers to fill their needs. What your professor noticed was that this demand of consumers seems to precede the supply of producers. But, that is simply driving the communication cycle, not the entire economy. The communication between producers and consumers is driven by this communication of consumer demand to producers. But, consumer demand does not drive an economy. It is the availability to Capital that allows for the communication between consumers and producers to occur. Capital drives the economy. That's why it's called Capitalism.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.10.11 @ 11:06AM
I simply disagree; first with your premise (comparing demand in economies of third world countries to America's demand for goods and services) and second, with your faulty conclusion that capital (labor and technology) drive the decision of an employer to hire.
When America's producers decide to hire more labor, it is because they recognize and increase in consumer confidence for their product or service. This consumer confidence is caused not by tax cuts for producers, but instead by "the employed" whose confidence is displayed to producers in increased aggregate demand for those produced goods and services. http://lyneussfields.blogspot......adows.html
MikeBee| 12.9.11 @ 12:46PM
L.F.,
What I wrote above is that Kennedy DISPLAYED Laffer's curve, by cutting taxes, thereby generating higher Revenues for the Treasury. Kennedy had never head of Laffer's curve; he simply showed what Art Laffer would later notice, and put into writing as economic theory. Reagan followed Laffer's advice, and the historical precedent of, at least, Kennedy, in lowering tax rates again, repeating Kennedy's unprecedented increase in government Revenues in doing so. Your claims that lowering tax rates doesn't create Revenues for the Treasury are simply not backed by any facts. All the evidence is available for you to see; don't choose to remain ignorant of these facts.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.10.11 @ 9:06PM
Then why isn't this bogus analysis called, "The Kennedy Curve"? Nice try, slick!
Al Adab| 12.8.11 @ 12:24PM
What wasn't part of the calculation was that Congress and administrations would spend beyond what the growing economy would provide. Borrowing 40% above income to support "social programs" and pork projects, that is payback to constituant groups, is where the problem lies. It's not the tax rates or the incomes, it is the overspending.
Lyneuss Fields | 12.8.11 @ 10:15PM
First, the Dow Jones lost over 8000 points to settle at roughly 6,500, dropping from roughly 14,700, in March of 2009. Tens of trillions of $$$$ were lost two months after President Obama took office. Of course it's his fault the housing market collapsed along with consumer credit attached to the equity of that real estate. And those innocent people he jerked all of a sudden found themselves under water on their mortgages and responsible for debt they were no longer able to pay. See, that debt had been tied to the equity in their homes. That Obama's really a hard ass--huh?
So know you want Americans to believe social programs designed to help bums, the sick and poor, and the elderly should be cut or eliminated. And you say helping these people is why America’s financial system is in the gutter? Paul Ryan's right! You guys are really courageous and bold.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html
Petronius| 12.8.11 @ 10:40AM
More wasted words upon same as wasted before. I know Democrats will never give up their belief that the world is a sandbox where all should have a level pail full and no more. But it is and always will be an arena. And all life on this planet is based on Competition, which the Democrat recoils at and shrinks from in his belief that his birth right is to be at the top of the social food chain after his betters have been brought down and reduced to his level of comfort. As he believes he can't win because the game is rigged against him, his reason d'etre is to destroy the prizes of victory and tear down the podium so that the winners may not rise above him. To claim that they are economically illiterate is true only in the sense of how real markets function. If we had a truly open market, Democrats could be brought to understand it, but would never accept it. The Democrat wants what he believes corporate CEO's have and enjoy; a big patch of turf which he views as captive to them. Market share as viewed by the Democrat is an instrument of leverage utilized by the businessman to price gouge. This occurs when the price for any product or service is above what he "feels" he should have to pay. Yet he only complains about the prices of those things he does not want to spend his money for. Look at people who gripe about the cost of a gallon of gas after voting for all the regulations that drive up the cost while they drink their Desani water at $1.50 a pint. And for the Democrat, feeling good is priceless. But his resentment while costing him little or nothing costs the industrious and economically literate person dearly. And there is nothing the Democrat enjoys more than depriving his neighbor who is more ambitious and productive of good living. The Democrat holds that power to bring grief to his betters more dear than life itself since emotional vindication is what his life is all about. I asked the sorehead peasants in my old office how many bills they could pay with scadenfreude and they were dumbstruck. They didn't give a rats rear that their quality of life wasn't improved. Their low desires for satisfaction which they call "social justice" mattered more than drawing their next breath.
Ask Purpleguy. He'll tell you.
RICHARD| 12.8.11 @ 11:13AM
Oh, come on! All we need to do is tax the "rich" and all will be well.
Rhoetus | 12.8.11 @ 1:39PM
If every registered voter had to write a personal check for their portion of the national debt there would no longer be deficit spending.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.8.11 @ 11:18AM
Ladies and gentlemen,
The thing that irks me most is the number of “good Americans” who sat out the last Presidential election. You sat on your fat butts and allowed these communists to take over our government!
That brings me to today.
Every time I read one of your posts about who you will NOT vote for, either sitting this next election out…or writing in…or throwing your vote away in a third party…I get very ill.
Then I get very angry all over again. We non-communists must have ONE goal. Out-vote the communists and fraudulent votes in a landslide.
I don’t give a damn if the last Republican standing is an idiot. He or she will at least be an innocent idiot, and we won’t have another chance to replace the growing power of our communists.
Speaking of the “last Republican standing”, we had better go back to Reagan’s ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT and Quit killing off our candidates.
Look, knot-heads, support who-ever you respect the most during the primaries, but commit here and now to vote ANYBODY BUT OBAMA! Next November.
We still outnumber the communists and the “takers” by a pretty good margin.
The future of our country will be decided with ballots next fall…or bullets. Bullets fly in both directions.
Please!
Get your heads out of your butts.
Look…even if Ron Paul out of some cosmic irony becomes our nominee, I will get off my butt and vote for the dumb sonofabitch. He is as dumb as dirt, but he ain’t a communist!
Alan Brooks| 12.8.11 @ 11:54AM
Romney is the only guy you have who can beat Obama-
but Obama will win.
Al Adab| 12.8.11 @ 12:29PM
Winning with Romney would only continue Obama policies so there is no purpose there.
To ultimately destroy the lying Leftists, the communitarians, the redristributionists, the totalitarian statists, would be the goal. Yes, Brooksie, I do mean to say that Freedom is more valuable than a bowl of pottage.
Andrew B| 12.8.11 @ 12:43PM
He most certainly will. And it's getting easier by the day. Newt? I mean Newt! Wow, this is going to be way easier than I ever thought.
Alan Brooks| 12.8.11 @ 11:55AM
"We still outnumber the communists and the “takers”
But you always say takers are communists.
Libertyman13| 12.8.11 @ 12:35PM
Wow. Hilarious! I don't have all day, so I'll respond to a couple of points.
First, find me an economist that does not believe that the ARRA provide a substantial positive benefit for the economy. That it did not have a significant, positive effect on jobs.
If the strange amalgamation that is our health care system was so great, why are we the least efficient per capita in the civilized world?
And, finally. The best one. Your boy Daniel Klein there JUST RAN A RETRACTION OF THAT STUDY in the Atlantic, because he did another study that showed that conservatives were just as dumb, if not dumber, about the economy. Get a grip, chief.
Andrew B| 12.8.11 @ 12:44PM
Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.
tonypal| 12.8.11 @ 1:20PM
Libertyman13, you seem like a confident guy. So although the following questions aren't exactly on topic, perhaps you could indulge me.
I'm fascinated by this ongoing discussion about "fairness" as it relates to the wealthy and taxes. So maybe you can be the first person to answer the following questions: At what level of income, regardless of the source of income, is someone considered wealthy? What exactly would be a fair rate of taxation for the wealthy? If you don't like that question, then tell me exactly what percentage of a wealthy person's income should be taken from them in the form of taxes?
gary siebel| 12.8.11 @ 2:41PM
Because wealth and poverty are relative, there can be no absolute point at which someone is declared wealthy. There is, however, an absolute point for poverty -- nothing, zero, nada.
Richard H. Davis| 12.8.11 @ 12:48PM
If you'd like to see a rational discussion of this survey:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com.....mason.html
Paul in Colorado| 12.8.11 @ 1:25PM
One of the primary attractions of the Keynesian approach is that it relieves politicians of their duty to spend the public's money responsibly. Money spent on a bronze statue of a ward heeler is just as efficacious as money spent on a water treatment plant; all that matters is that they spend the money, so that others may spend it too.
Suzette Rodgers| 12.8.11 @ 1:41PM
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free.... It expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson
Willy| 12.8.11 @ 1:45PM
Further evidence that this administration is Jimmy Carter 2.0 and that the Dems continue to slide even more to the left.
Dave| 12.8.11 @ 1:58PM
There is perverse logic behind The Regime's thinking on health care:
1. Reducing the economic incentive for training for and serving in the health care profession will result in people who enter the profession for reasons other than money.
2. There is an infinite supply of such people - public school teachers being a prime example of them.
3. There is no such thing as relative competence - any person can do any job as well as any other as long as they pay union dues. Just ask Andy Stern.
4. The result will be rationing of the resulting inferior health care. But Democratic political elites will be insulated from that.
gary siebel| 12.8.11 @ 2:35PM
What a complete and total load. You probably don't even know how economics got the moniker of "dismal science" in the first place!
Economic theorizing is just politics masquerading as science. The real purpose of economic theory is to justify behavior; at prediction it is always certainly right up until it is certainly wrong, and then in hindsight evidently wrong from the git go. It has no LAWS, only tendencies and probabilities. (Physics -- now that's a science with real LAWS!) If economic behavior were as predictable as these self-glorified accountants would have us believe then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today. But guess what -- economists are finding themselves in foreclosure just like regular folks who don't dwell in Ivory Towers, or wear new clothes like emperors.
Here's one for you, ignorant ass: David Ricardo -- remember him? I doubt it but you should because he's the one who came up with the term "dismal science" in response to the parson's theory (that would be Malthus, remember?) -- and who also came up with the theory of comparative advantage so as to provide ammunition to those who wished to change the Corn Laws. It was politically motivated, yet today it is cited as valid, to the degree economists (and the anti-union types amongst the Repubs) thought it would be a grand idea to export all our manufacturing to Asia. (Screw you Mr. Jobs, slavekeeper.)
How's that working out for us today? The recession lingers precisely because we exported all that manufacturing.
When the advantage is not based on, say, geography, climate, or material access, but only on the cost of labor, it's a hostage advantage -- both sides become hostage to the situation. One side is trapped in enslavement and the other side is trapped in consumption. Just how long do you think Chinese workers (et al) will be content with slave wages? They will demand more and then we will be screwed royally -- that is, everybody but the fat cats who will export their capital to wherever they see fit. (I could go on and on about economic theories -- there are over 190 pages of them on Wiki -- but I will spare you -- for now.) There is no uniform, verifiable theory for predicting human economic behavior -- period.
Both the Tea Party and Occupiers are right. The government needs to pay it's own way without growing indefinitely, and the fat cats need to stop getting all the breaks. Most economists favor the fat cats because, after all, that's who employs them.
James Solbakken | 12.8.11 @ 3:57PM
You are deeply and profoundly wrong if you think that ignorance of economics does not result in catastrophic consequences. Economics is as unforgiving as physics, aerodynamics, chemistry, etc. Playing with matches a girl can get burned, don't you know? I challenge you to look at history and claim that economic ignorance has not played its part in tragedy after tragedy.
gary siebel| 12.8.11 @ 5:46PM
Indeed, by all means check history, and you will see that the supposed wisdom of economists results in precisely the same results as supposed ignorance.
Every bubble from the beginning of time has been launched on the basis of economic theories. Where are the Physiocrats today? The mercantilists? Each comes and goes in turn, but we are constantly told that THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT (you want history, check out the book of same title).
Economics is NOT a science.
Larry| 12.8.11 @ 9:28PM
I am the last person to call economics a science. Nevertheless, I think it a lesson of history that the less wealth created, the less prosperity everyone else has. That has been the recent lesson of the late 20th century early 21st century. The second lesson of that same period is that the welfare state CANNOT survive without a high birthrate and a LOT of real wealth to sustain it.
We have forsaken the industrial/commercial state for the welfare state, and we get what we deserve. It has little to do with "exporting manufacturing" (the U.S. still manufactures over $1.4 trillion worth of goods each year), and more to do with the loss of self-initiative, the sense of entitlement among government beneficiaries (whether rich "fat cats" or poor "welfare queens"), and the loss of self-reliance.
David Guaspari | 12.8.11 @ 2:46PM
Klein and Buturovic have published a followup (http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-revisited-new-results). Most of questions asked in their original paper "challenged leftist ... positions and/or reenforced conservative ... ones." When they redid the experiment with a more balanced set of questions they concluded "Now, all groups do poorly, with each group tending to do relatively poorly on the questions challenging its positions." Alas.
Randy131| 12.8.11 @ 2:48PM
The problem isn't with Democrats, but the public in general. Obama's administration said the unemployment percentage number for November is now 8.6%, down from 9.0% in October, down from 9.1% in September, down from 9.2% in August, yet they also tell us that the new unemployment claims each week must drop to 200,000 or less for the economy to add jobs, or drop to at least 300,000 new unemployment claims each week to just keep the job market steady, yet for the last 48 weeks the new unemployment claims have averaged over 400,000 a week, so how is the unemployment percentage numbers coming down? What they also told us is that everyone that has been unemployed for over 99 weeks have been dropped from these calculations, meaning everyone who lost their jobs in Obama's first year as President is no longer counted in the unemployment numbers, which the last 4 months of Obama's first year in office is when the recession caused the greatest lost of jobs, which they have now deleted from the unemploymnet count, which is the true reason the unemployment percentage numbers have been going down, and will continue to go down only because they drop those who have been unemployed for 99 weeks or more, not because we've added jobs to the economy. Doesn't anyone see this manipulation of numbers to make the economy look better than it actually is, and the reason Obama so desperately needs this tax cut extension, so people won't feel the complete pain of his economic policy failures. If Obama is re-elected as President, the way his administration reports the unemployment percentage numbers, by the end of his next 4 year term, he'll have the unemployment percentage number down to 3.0%, while half of all Americans will be without a job. The problem is the public doesn't see or understand this, but I'm sure the Democrats do.
Buck Ofama| 12.8.11 @ 4:01PM
Nothing pithy or profound to opine, except that we must be RID of the communist c0cksucker at ANY COST.
Pat| 12.8.11 @ 4:54PM
A crowd is gathered around Dr. Feelgood’s gaudy but sturdy wagon for the daily medicine show; today’s product is the Doctor’s Surefire Health Tonic and Life Restorer, $15 for a small bottle, no coupons accepted. To a Conservative watching the show, the audience members have to be extremely gullible folks of questionable intelligence. What the Conservative doesn’t realize is that one of Dr. Feelgood’s employees is lifting his wallet, extracting the cash and then returning the wallet unnoticed to the left rear pocket – and all without the Conservative realizing he was just robbed, his attention being riveted on the show up front. Like most successful swindles, the idea is to fix the mark’s attention on the phony show while the real dirty work goes on behind his back.
Conservative pundits, like this author, never catch on to this form of confidence game. They always give Democrats the benefit of the doubt and every plausible excuse is trotted out for why Liberals aren’t more like Conservatives. Liberals and their Democratic Party mouthpieces are (fill in the blank) economically illiterate, misguided, emotional, inept, uneducated, or some other epithet.
Why can’t a woman be more like a man as Henry Higgins would rhetorically ask. But who got to spend Obama’s trillion dollar giveaways and whose grandkids will be paying it back? Who stashed part of the missing $550 million Soylandra “loan” in a Dutch Antilles’ secret bank account and who got to say: “tsk, tsk, those foolish Democrats”? Cunning, but unwise, may be a fair assessment of the average Democrat, but Conservatives are the ones with the empty wallets.
T. Lindow| 12.8.11 @ 7:51PM
Obama and his ilk are not the least bit illiterate about basic economics. We have to remember that they have completely different goals from the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that most of us hold dear. Their goals are better summed up as the second two of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. They are not the least bit interested in prosperity. It’s equality, stupid. And they’re doing the exact right thing to attain that goal. We are already more equal and less prosperous since Obama took office.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 12.8.11 @ 7:54PM
If Obama does win it will largely be because he and his Acorn cronies et al, commit mass voter fraud, just as they did when Obama was elected ......
Laine | 12.8.11 @ 9:45PM
There are two kinds of Dems (including RINOs). Both are found in their leadership. One cynical group knows that they are running a Ponzi scheme to get power, promising entitlements that future generations cannot get themselves though stuck with the bill for their forerunners' excesses. (At some point these taxpayers will be numerically overwhelmed by takers or they will revolt and refuse to pay). This first group of cynical politicians comprise egoists who really don't care at whose expense they get their prestige and control freak jollies wielding power followed by over-inflated pensions provided by the very sheep they've fleeced, augmented by corruption. They are the pigs at the trough "apres moi le deluge" types who figure they'll get in under the wire before the whole thing collapses. And who are best positioned to scoop up more loot in the chaos than those who were in power as demonstrated with collapse of the Soviet Union? The second group of Dems really are economic illiterates no matter how many university degrees they have. They overwhelmingly occupy government and union jobs and really have no idea from where the money that pays their inflated salaries and ridiculous benefits comes. They cannot comprehend that socialism must always be subsidized by a free enterprise sector, the golden goose they demonize and always eventually strangle through regulation and suffocate with too many demands. Ordinary tax paying Dem voters are too stupid to figure out that the "equality" they seek will be at a much lower standard of living than they are used to and they will not fit into the tiny oligarchy that will be very very rich after making everyone else "equal" peasants.
POST American| 12.8.11 @ 9:50PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
Take back the language.
--Chuck those BOGUS and insidious
London bankster terms:
----'CAP--IT--ALLLL' -ism
-------'SO--SHELL--ism'
--------'CALM--YOU--nism'
----------'MARKS--ism"
Again, thse terms are loaded n' coded.
Stick to FREE ENTERPRISE and LIBERTY.
And remember, USURY is NOT, in any
real, genuine sense of the word --economy.
Keep your eyes on the nature and ant-icks
of the actuarial psychopaths and their 'fave'
instrument if debt slave plantation creation,
fractional reserve lending, FAKE currency
and FAKE debt.
Forget about 'depop' ---worry about
DE-digitalizing of mankind.
--------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG 2012-------------
David| 12.8.11 @ 10:06PM
I'm sorry but this article is disingenuous at best and probably just plain ignorant. Daniel Klein recently wrote an article in The Atlantic where he discussed the study cited here. He pointed out the significant errors made in the study which should have been apparent to any college sophomore. Primarily, that his own bias as a conservative was used as a basis of judging the survey.
In other words, the study was designed such that the correct answer was the conservative answer. This in no way establishes the relative ignorance of economics of anybody taking the survey, it only establishes that the survey had a conservative bias.
The fact that Mr. Catron was apparently unable to ascertain this only speaks to his own apparent inability to account for his own bias. When you judge peoples intelligence by their ability to see the world the same way that you see it, the subsequent image produced says much more about you than it does about liberals, conservatives or anybody else that you might consider.
David| 12.8.11 @ 10:19PM
As far as health care is considered there are some significant problems when it comes to allowing the "free market" solve the problems.
In order for the marketplace to provide a functional solution there has to be a reasonable relationship between supply and demand. When you have a heroin addict living in a community where the heroin supply is controlled by a single cartel, the marketplace is meaningless.
With health care the demand is essentially infinite. If your choice is to pay for a certain treatment or die, the cost of the treatment doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not you have the ability to pay.
Now this wouldn't necessarily be a problem except for the fact that many doctors have these troublesome little things called morals. If someone comes into the emergency room after major injuries in a car crash, they don't always wait to verify the patient can pay before providing treatment.
If we could just eliminate this issue of doctors treating patients who can't pay then the marketplace would provide an effective vehicle of determining who can get treatment and who can't. (sarcasm intended)
Vic| 12.10.11 @ 12:11AM
I don't know where you live, but in my state, some of the best hospitals are run by churches. I never heard of one person being turned away for inability to pay from any of them. What a concept. People freely running such an institution without government compulsion involved.
But we must shut down such institutions if they refuse to perform abortions. I suppose it has more to do with liberals always confusing the state and the church. Or perhaps the state IS their church? (sarcasm intended)
David| 12.13.11 @ 9:51PM
While the church run hospitals may not turn away patients due to their inability to pay, the cost of their treatment has to come from someone. Essentially, the treatment of indigent patients is covered through the cost of treatment of non-indigent patients. This is hardly the free market at work.
I'm not entirely sure of the point of your response. You don't really address my criticism
Vic| 12.10.11 @ 12:11AM
I don't know where you live, but in my state, some of the best hospitals are run by churches. I never heard of one person being turned away for inability to pay from any of them. What a concept. People freely running such an institution without government compulsion involved.
But we must shut down such institutions if they refuse to perform abortions. I suppose it has more to do with liberals always confusing the state and the church. Or perhaps the state IS their church? (sarcasm intended)
David| 12.8.11 @ 10:22PM
The Daniel Klein commentary on his own June 2010 publication of the study cited by Mr. Catron:
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag.....-you/8713/
john solis| 12.8.11 @ 10:55PM
For some Democrats this is not a question of Economic Illiteracy. Many of these people honestly believe that if they want something badly enough, and legislate it, the thing will happen.
If they failed math in Middle School, legislate it away. If someone pushed them down on the playground, legislate against P.E. in High School and nobody will ever bully another student.
Unintended consequences are someone else's fault, probably Bush.