The Economist Chimes In

Oct 5th, 2011

Image via ABC

Having expressed my own reservations about the anti-hierarchical, intentionally leaderless nature of the Occupy Movement from the outset, I have, nevertheless, heartily endorsed it.

W.W. over at The Economist makes a fine argument for jumping off the fence and getting behind the protests, warts and all:

"I am not by disposition a joiner, but I'm nevertheless inclined to smile upon attempts to stick it to the man, even if the attempt is quixotic or confused and the man in the end remains unstuck. The Burkean horror of social upheaval is fine in its place, but there is no apparent danger of upheaval. And who among us doubts that the man deserves a good sticking to? So why not try?"

Read more

Saturday Round Up of Interesting Things

Sept 3rd, 2011

Just a few recommendations.

-  If you haven't already read it, former Reagan and Bush 1 economic adviser Bruce Bartlett's endorsement of higher taxes on the wealthy is a must.

"Growth was stronger in the 1990s when the relative revenue loss was small and was dismal during the George W. Bush administration, when two-thirds of the aggregate revenue loss occurred.

It is not class warfare to suggest that the richest 1 percent of people in society pay one-third of their income to the federal government, as they did under Ronald Reagan. Keep in mind that dividends were taxable as ordinary income every year of his administration, and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 he supported taxing capital gains as ordinary income as well."

Worth 1,000 Words

Sept 2nd, 2011

From the Economist review of the recently released Dick Cheney memoir

Austerity Now?

Aug 28th, 2011

The Economist laments the current obsession with reducing debt in Western economies generally, but their harshest critique is directed at our own:

"America... has done virtually nothing to deal with its medium-term deficit, but on current policy will see the biggest short-term tightening of the big rich economies next year. That would have been a poor choice even in a reasonable recovery. Given the economy’s weakness, it looks daft. But it could be fixed. The congressional supercommittee charged with finding ways to trim the ten-year deficit as part of the recent debt-ceiling deal could agree on a bolder package of entitlement cuts and new revenue, while Barack Obama and the Republicans could limit the short-term squeeze by extending the temporary payroll-tax cut and boosting spending on things like roads and school repairs."

I part ways with their editors on issues of "entitlements" but they are otherwise dead on.

Matthew Desmond notes how eerily similar this preoccupation with debt reduction at the expense of all other policy initiatives is to the disastrous path once taken by the Hoover Administration.

Alas, we are now in a climate dominated by zealots who proceed as if they worship Murray Rothbard's historical revisionism and laissez-faire extremism. That is to say, the debate has been hijacked by people who actually don't believe in government directly stimulating the economy in any form to alleviate the crisis.

What We Need

August 4th, 2011

The Economist, that once staid and altogether traditionally conservative bastion of reasonable economic thought, tells it like it is while issuing a common sense call for action... again.

"Extension of the payroll tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits would improve confidence, reduce projected fiscal tightening over the next year, and ease the suffering of the unemployed. The double-dip is at the door. Only quick action can send it packing now."

This isn't about entitlements. It's about the government not actively increasing the crisis of demand.