Monday, August 22, 2011

What It Will Take

Michael S Maline, a former editor with Forbes, writes an otherwise forgettable opinion piece, but includes this insightful comment on the economy:
First, let me establish the basis for my argument by pointing out that, whatever your hopes, the economy isn’t going to turn around and save you. The only economic ‘miracles’ are those that result from a society dedicating itself fully to certain economic realities. That isn’t going to happen under your administration. Everybody in the U.S., (well, maybe not Paul Krugman), knows what it will take to turn our economy around: low taxes, a reversal of the runaway expansion of government, the unleashing of domestic energy sources, lifting the crushing weight of too many government regulations, and establishing a predictable economic environment that allows companies large and small to make long-term plans and that supports entrepreneurship and venture capital.
I think a lot more people that Dr Paul Krugman may be on the other side, but I do think that we are at a point where a lot of folks understand that we need to change course.  That is the crux of the issue we face.  We are, as a nation, divided on some of these issues, such as regulation and environmental protection.

As for the President "resigning" or not seeking a second term, this seems a much better discussion.

My own take, at this time, is that President Obama will seek a second term and has a good shot at winning a second term in office.  On the other hand, the economic discussion above is one we need to have.  The men and women on Capitol Hill have two questions they need to wrestle with.  First, they need to decide if Keynes was correct in his understanding of how the economy works.  Saying no does not automatically mean that Heyek is correct.  The second question is if they believe environmental degradation (and throw in safety concerns) are such that they believe we are reaching a tipping point from which recovery of the environment will take quite some time (decades to centuries) and thus we need to throttle back the US economy now for the good of all.  The contrary view is that such concerns are not sufficient to override the concerns for the living "environment" for ordinary citizens here and now, who are currently in economic and cultural peril.

Regarding Fedeerally imposed safety rules, it is not just my "Progressive" neigher who has turned against the Nanny State.  Last week I saw Democratic Commentator Bob Beckel on Fox News calling for the abolition of the EPA.  Mr Beckel is definitely to the left of the political spectrum.

Less name calling and more analysis please.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regardds  —  Cliff

2 comments:

Jack Mitchell said...

This:
The contrary view is that such concerns are not sufficient to override the concerns for the living "environment" for ordinary citizens here and now, who are currently in economic and cultural peril.
from a political party that constantly drones about generational responsibility.

Consider the EPA as a force multiplier in burden shifting austerity. If I'm frame it in palpable buzz words, will you buy in?

GOP logic: Debt bad - Pollution good. So, your grandkids can afford the cancer treatments.

C R Krieger said...

Didn't some Supreme Court Justice write a thin book on environmental law in which he noted some site in New Hampshire where we could have spent millions upon millions cleaning it up or just fenced it off for ten or twenty years and it would clean itself?

There is no perfect world.  The question is, what is the best approach to maximizing what is good for all the folks, down through the generations.

Regards  —  Cliff