This does not strike me as a story about how income inequality caused the financial crisis. Rather, this is a story about how policies intended to reduce inequality had the unintended consequence of precipitating America’s worst economic slump since the Depression. It’s very important that we’re straight on what the story is, since different stories may have very different implications for policy. If the story is that the level of inequality itself—and not our ideas about or political reactions to it—indirectly caused the crisis, then we may think that narrowing the gap is a matter of urgent necessity. But if the story is that an ill-conceived political attempt to reduce inequality—and not the fact of inequality itself—led to apocalyptic economic devastation, then we may well conclude that it is better to refrain from equalising initiatives unless we are quite certain they will not backfire.
It was always an obvious lie, except to the rubes.
I’m still amused at Bill Clinton’s prediction of how popular this would be once it passed, and I continue to wonder if he really believed it, or was setting up the Messiah for failure, in anticipation of 2012.
Jason Kuznicki takes a look back at one of the economically stupidest and vicious things that the government did in the past two years (and that’s saying something, considering how much policy stupidity has abounded):
See how that works? You can’t get something for nothing. Cash for Clunkers turns out to have been a highly inefficient wealth-transfer program, that is, one that destroyed a bunch of wealth along the way. It gave wealth to those already relatively wealthy people who did the government’s bidding (that is, those who could afford to part with a used car and buy a new one). And now it’s taking wealth from those relatively poor people who need a used car today — in the form of higher prices.
Along the way, it destroyed hundreds of thousands of cars — that’s the real wealth these poor people don’t have access to anymore, because the scrapped cars aren’t a part of the economy.
And this is what passes for a successful government program.
And I had idiots here in my own comments section applauding it as being a “success” because so many people (willing to take handouts) participated in it. This is the same kind of warped thinking that declares a legislator “successful” if he passes lots of legislation, regardless of its quality, or how damaging to the Republic it is. I’m always amazed and amused at the morons who think that I should be impressed by the president, and approve of him more, because he managed to ram so much of his destructive agenda through.
Are we going to run out of helium due to an economically ignorant law? This could affect the cost of spaceflight operations. It would be ironic if we end up going to the moon not for He3, but He4.
It seems to me that if they really wanted to privatize the federal reserve, they should have sold it off to a private bidder, rather than selling the helium at an arbitrary rate.
Just a reminder to people like the ignorant idiots in the Space Politics comments section as to why NASA’s budget is almost certainly going to take a whack from the coming Deficit Commission. It’s not the war, stupid. And note who was in charge of the Congress (and then the White House) when it skyrocketed. Note also that even with the dreaded “tax cuts,” it was declining, indicating that it wasn’t a revenue problem, or at least not one caused by the lower tax rates.
Why the bad economic news shouldn’t always (or ever, lately) be “unexpected“:
While our economy is enormously complicated, it seems reasonably clear that the current slump has turned into the “worst downturn since the Great Depression” precisely because of the ill-advised policies of the Obama administration. Those policies contradict the lessons of history, and there is no reason why their failure should be unexpected.
But “as any intelligent and informed person would have expected” doesn’t quite fit the media narrative.
…that the president doesn’t read much. I’d be willing to bet that one of the things he hasn’t read is Hayek. Or Friedman. Or Sowell. If he had, he wouldn’t be such an economic ignoramus.
Only minutes after her department reported that payrolls had shed another 131,000 positions in July, there was Secretary Hilda Solis speaking brazenly of the “strong and immediate action” the White House had taken to save or create “more than 2.5 million American jobs.”
But as the market action showed, investors could see she didn’t know what she was talking about.
But then, Solis is no different from any number of administration officials who by their comments or actions demonstrate almost daily that they know nothing about creating jobs or anything else to improve the economy.
And why should they? There’s never been an administration led by so few people with any experience in the private sector — including the president, the vice president and even the treasury secretary, who last week wrongly called it a “myth” that raising taxes on high-income Americans would hurt small business.
