There is the question of the dismal science and then again, there is abysmal difference in inputs and outputs seen and viewed as important.
To wit, a Keynesian would dismiss Laffer’s view that tax rates and investment incentives matter. A monetarist just worries about having enough money flowing through the economy.
Likewise, Democrats think government (read “Democrats”) know better than the average guy/gal in the street what is important for them; and, to wit, since people are generally eleemosynary in the Democratic universe, those who aren’t are perverse and selfish and undeserving.
Somewhat similarly, many Republicans thump their own religious knowledge and zeal to tell people how to live their lives.
To my knowledge, each economic point of view works best by excluding important considerations of outcome and opportunity. Hopefully, this new election cycle will present the tradeoffs in a way the voters can understand.
It’s also easy to see blatant examples (read Greece) where ignoring Laffer and focusing on Keynes have left a rather sorry economy. Not to say Obama is adhering all that avidly to past Greek political ways, but it does appear to be where his heart is.
And, to forecast the economy, it would be a huge challenge to be able to always be able to accurately gauge the temper of ascendant policies.
It does appear as though Obama has put the economy on a patch of economic ice with his fiscal and tax and regulatory policies. Bernanke’s money printing doesn’t do much when the economy is on the anti-growth ice of Democratic policies. In fact these policies are more like a snow drift blocking advancement.
And much of Europe is following the same path – more government, less for the private sector, abhorrence of risk and equalization of economic outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment