Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Chart of the, Decade

From the WSJ op-ed on last night's speech, we have this handy-dandy chart that tells us all we really need to know:

Look at it, let it sink in for a few minutes. The vertical axis is growth rate, the horizontal is the quarters under each President, after the recoveries officially began. Want a real shock to the system? Total up the growth under each President. We're looking at growth under Reagan that is triple that under Obama.

A familiar refrain from the Left is that Reaganomics doesn't and didn't work, that it's flawed thinking. But that refrain is, itself, built around a core misconception many have, when it comes to Reaganomics (or the economic ideas of groups like Cato and Mises): critics wrongly assume it was a plan, a set of directives, initiatives, programs, and policies designed to accomplish something (in this case economic growth).

The only real policy aspect of Reaganomics was control over the money supply. But that's the Federal Government's job, after all. The rest of the "program" wasn't a program, at all. Rather, Reaganomics was simply getting (the government) out of the way. That's it. It was a recognition that the government cannot plan economic growth, that it can't program the economy to behave in a predictable fashion.

One would think this is a lesson that would have been well-learned by now. But alas, that is not the case. Obama's Address hit the same notes, once again. He actually believes a millionaire tax will somehow lead to economic growth, will create jobs (given that he thinks extending unemployment benefits will do the same, I guess I shouldn't be surprised). And his new initiatives include new watchdogs, a renewed pursuit of the evil mortgage companies. And, of course, clean energy. Because the Administration has already demonstrated great skill in picking promising new companies developing green technology, right?

For someone so smart--supposedly--it is truly amazing that the President appears to have no learning curve. That begs the question: does the American public?

Cheers, all.


  1. I find it interesting that you say "evil mortgage companies" as if banks knowingly approving fraudulent and/or impossible mortgage applications somehow isn't a bad thing, or even that it shouldn't be prosecuted and result in more than a handful of people going to jail, like the executives of Enron did. I'm sure that if the taxpayers had allowed these "evil mortgage companies" to throw the world economy into a depression and collapse into bankruptcy the way they should have, you would be less quick to sarcastically label them as "evil" today. But I guess because the government bailed them out on the taxpayer's back, your making light of it, even using it as a weapon against the left, is somehow now just part of the game. But know this: The 99% will be here waiting for the next collapse brought on by big business and crony capitalism, and something tells me that when it happens, your brand of politics will be less enthusiastically-embraced by the American people than it already is. An overwhelming majority of Americans hate these banks for what they did to homeowners and what they continue to do to consumers, and so I don't see your class warfare politics gaining much traction.

  2. Thanks for the comments, pauronco. The thing is, there is plenty of blame to go around for what happened in the mortgage industry. No doubt, there are people that did wrong. But some of those people hold or held elected office in DC. Some of them are Republicans, some of them are Democrats. Plus, individuals (homeowners) have to be held to account for their own stupidity. As the saying goes, if something seems to good to be true, it probably is.

    Beyond that, I'm not engaging in class warfare. That would be you, when you reference the 99%, no?