Refuting his points and understanding their flaws will be job one for conservatives. We've got to undo this bad thinking forever.
He does not really engage any conservative positions, he merely dismisses them. He then resorts to the old trick of associating liberal positions with science. As if Keynesian economics was equivalent to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Mr. Pearlstein clearly has no more grasp of economics than he does of physics. He is *cough* an intellectual tourist *cough* showing us the home videos of his Alpine travels and now wishs to regale us with his first hand accounts of the geologic, cultural and political history of Switzerland.
My approach to Mr. Pearlstein is to dismiss, rather than engage him. We do not share the same premises, and regardless of his embrace of “scientific Keynesianism”, it is he, not us, who refuses to learn from or understand experience.
The 20th Century was marked by more jimcrack halfbaked notions and social experiments than any other in the history of man. Repeal socialism, Communism, Marxism, eugenics (Margret Sanger, anyone?), Keynesianism, Freudian quakery, Nazism, lysenkoism, Stalinism, all of them packaged neatly in a box labeled “progressivism”? You bet.
Hitler was an “idealist” and a “progressive”. He was also a socialist, an animal rights advocate, a vegetarian, a teatotaller, an antichristian who espoused a preverse, self-serving form of Christianity, a non-smoker, a drug abuser, a hypochondriac, an avid of follower of unconventional medicine, childishly sentimental, a dilettante and a sexual deviant. He was enthralled by a superficial and superstitious naturalism. He was a technical illiterate fascinated by the fruits of technology he never really understood and upon which he made sweeping generalizations and pronouncements, while loathing and envying its creators. If he were alive today and living in Wisconsin, hed be on the liberal arts faculty of a third rate community college and a Democratic Party activist.
The only "clock" in the sky is the one towards God's judgment and Armageddon, but they avoid that subject at every turn.
I don't see "progress", but instead the world becoming more and more evil, and times getting increasingly desperate in all areas: economic, social, crime, debt, anger, immorality, and Godlessness.
Liberals are Humanists - they thing man is the measure of all things. They hate God, who is really in charge.
They will have eternity to think about that proverbial "clock" while they are in Hell forever, unless they turn to Christ.
How long can liberals continue to lie about Hoover? No one made any attempt to balance the federal budget until 1937. During the first eight years, Hoover followed by Roosevelt, increased federal spending and made the deficits larger.
Eventually, FDR would try to rein in spending, but with a growing GDP, spending actually increased even as the budget was balanced for a short time.
The issue with Keynesianism is that it works only once. If you have relatively low public debt and relatively low taxes and a worldwide economic crisis arises, you can tax and spend your way back into a stimulated economy.
But unless you use the resulting prosperity to pay down debt and reduce taxes, you will get diminishing returns with each new Keynesian stimulus.
The 20th Century from 1932 to 1982 was the apotheosis of Keynesianism. That's what the Democrats want. The Buchananites want 18th Century mercantilism.
What we need is 21st Century thinking.
Sounds like he holds all of Obama’s positions. We all know how THOSE are working for us.
“Refuting [the article’s] points and understanding their flaws will be job one for conservatives.”
You’re absolutely correct, and that’s why I found last night’s CNN debate disappointing. The Republican candidates should be in a contest to demonstrate who best expresses a conservative vision that can defeat Obama’s vision of a social welfare state. Instead, the Republicans again act like the stupid party, and allow the MSM to goad them into jabbing each other.
The debate format is really best-suited for Democrat candidates. It’s easy for Democrats to advocate “health care for all”, “a jobs bill to get the country moving again”, or “gay marriage” in slogans and soundbites. It’s much more difficult to distil the argument against such nonsense into a few words.
Even though the debate format makes it difficult to express ideas that address the complexity of the real world, there’s no excuse for Republicans to go on public display with petty squabbling.
I would, however, abort this author.
DEMOCRATS: BECAUSE THE TALIBAN ARE A BUNCH OF SWELL GUYS WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT
DEMOCRATS: BECAUSE SOVEREIGNTY IS SO 19TH CENTURY
DEMOCRATS: BECAUSE THE COLD WAR WAS FOUGHT AGAINST THE WRONG ENEMY
Newton's Laws of Motion were widely accepted since the time an apple fell on his head. It however was repealed by the quantum physics that he fears Republicans will try to repeal.
It is not the Republicans that want to repeal quantum physics, its the young physicist who wants to be the next Einstein who will discover a new model that interprets the physical world more closely.
Did Milton Friedman's name not come up?
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the ... Anyone? Anyone? ... the Great Depression, passed the ... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered? ... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something d-o-o economics. Voodoo economics.
People went hungry and even starved in this country while FDR’s thugs forced farmers to pour milk into streams, burn crops and kill and bury farm animals. That’s progressive thinking and it’s resultant actions.
Then he'd remove the cover and show the slope was unchanged going back to the beginning of the 20th century.
He was making the point that the Clean Air Act really didn't have that much to do with making our air cleaner. It was almost all due to technology.
If he have trouble getting your mind around that just remember just about all heating and cooking were done with wood and coal which are far more polluting than gas, oil and electricity (even though about half of it is generated from coal)