Blind Economic Faith

Barak Obama has more faith in the American economy than I do. This faith is shared by all the announced Democrat candidates for the 2020 nomination. They have greater faith in the American economy than President Trump or Andrew Klavan or Steven Mnuchin. It may seem counterintuitive to say that the Anti-American Party has greater faith in the American economy than conservative patriots, but there it is.

I saw an interview of Amy Klobuchar over the weekend that illustrates the point. She refused to grant any credit to President Trump for the economic boom that has brought us record-low unemployment and strong GDP growth. She insisted that the policies of Team Obama were what brought about our strong economy. She implied that President Trump was just a lucky chump who inherited an improving economy from President Obama.

Leftists seem to be lazy thinkers. There are supposedly highly intelligent Leftists who are just as clueless about simple economics as the low-information Leftists that support the Anti-American Party at the ballot box. Rather than work out logical consequences and practical results of policy decisions, they are content to support policies that sound appealing. They support policies that make themselves feel good.

And feeling good fuels the economy. Of course; Keynes himself said so. In 2009 they all felt wonderful because they had elected Obama the Light-Bearer, and they figured all America felt wonderful on this account. The natural result would be a raising of “animal spirits” which would boost the economy out of the ditch and put us all on the road to utopia.

They knew that historic American recessions lasted about a year and took a couple of years to recover. They had every expectation that the American economy would do what the American economy had always done. There was no need to worry about the details; the big picture looked great, felt great; life was going to be fabulous in the Age of Obama, because Obama was fabulous. How could the animal spirits not respond to the fabulousness of Obama?

With that sort of unthinking confidence in the underlying strength of the American economy, they did not need to care about Team Obama regulatory strangulation or uncompetitive tax structure, or the credit crunch. None of that was going to matter, because the American economy is such a powerhouse.

That is what I mean when I say they have greater faith. They have the sort of faith that primitives put in witchdoctors. Which is what I heard from Ms. Klobuchar. When prompted with a question about faith in President Trump’s economic policies, including the Republican tax cut and rollback of regulations, she cut the questioner off to say that she has ‘faith in American businesses who continue to expand and grow in the great economic climate created by President Obama’ [my paraphrase]. Of course she does. “American businesses” is a talisman; it is an incantation to say, and then magically good economic things happen. Isn’t that how it works for President Trump? It does not matter who is in power or what economic policies are implemented; just say the magic words and economic prosperity happens.

They have greater faith in the American economy. When we start talking about marginal tax rates, the costs of government-imposed recordkeeping on matters unrelated to business, competitiveness, efficiencies, marketplace dynamics, debt and other stuff, they are too lazy to listen. They do not address these sorts of questions, and simply talk past them rather than responding to them.

There will be no debate. The good economic news will not result in any credit for President Trump or for the Republicans.

2020 will be a turnout election. We must motivate the low-information voters on our side to keep the barbarians at bay.

4+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

22 thoughts on “Blind Economic Faith”

  1. I wonder if Amy Klobuchar gives Obama credit for decimating the Democratic Party. That I believed helped in the recovery.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. The Democrats have great faith in taxing the 1% to death. Unfortunately, there just aren’t enough of those uber billionaires to pay for everybody else.

    We are a relatively rich country, but not rich enough. You could tax every citizen in this country 100% of their income and it wouldn’t come close to erasing the $33 trillion dollar debt.

    It may be too late, but our only alternative is to slash spending and I would start with social security; you can’t take away what people have already contributed in good faith but you can stop COLAs. For younger people, allow them to abandon social security deductions from their paychecks and divert funds to HSAs. (I love these and contribute the full amount every year.)

    Also, give people the option not to take medicare; I’d rather keep my private plan and be allowed to buy my insurance interstate. Let competition rule. More importantly, many doctors are exercising their option to refuse medicare patients because they are reimbursed at 60%. This happened to my parents and they were forced to go concierge. Great for them, but not everyone can afford this.

    You can also slash levels of govt. Do we need mayors, city councils, governors, state legislatures, 435 federal Reps? Do we need all the cabinet posts?

    I’ll leave the Senate alone because it does protect the smaller states.

    I have an accountant’s heart so I’d welcome further budget cutting ideas.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. Do we need mayors, city councils, governors, state legislatures…

    Wow, true Hamiltonian there.

    Anyway, if you recall, this line of thinking where the previous president gets the credit/blame for the current president’s economic situation is not new for Democrats. Obama was blaming Bush for the economic woes up until 2016!! It is no surprise that the Democrats would say after being two years removed from Obama that Trump’s economy is really Obama’s. There is no way, if anyone really paid attention, that they could get away with it, especially in manufacturing. During the 2016 campaign, Obama said those jobs are not coming back and asked how Trump was going to get them back, with a magic wand? So at least in that sector, the Democrats abandoned manufacturing. If I were Trump, I would do nothing but run that clip of Obama saying that and just show graphics of the manufacturing numbers. I would run it in every single swing state.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. It did appear that Obama thought there was nothing he could do that would stop business from making money for government to spend. I recall some bragging about keeping a foot on the neck of businesses…this when the economy was way down. No wonder the economy was choking and dying for eight years. Thank goodness there was enough life and spirit left to get off the floor when the foot came off the neck.

    I’m sure you are right that the credit and blame will not be properly assigned. Even so a good economy will help Trump, which makes me think some powerful people will be trying to harm the economy.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. In some ways I think the morons, uh, people know whom to credit for the economy. Obama’s only saving grace was his race. That’s mostly why he won re-election.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. I’m a little confused. Why would the brilliant Obama put in place economic polices that would create a boom after he left office? Did he really hate Hillary that much?

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  7. Hypatia:
    To hell with B. Hussein and the camel he rode in on.

    I’m so far beyond this insult it is truly unprintable! (You’re welcome, Dime.)  🙂

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Yes why don’t we just have one ruler like a king!

    Don’t ever put words in my mouth again. I simply believe that we’re over-regulated and that is a direct result of too many people with nothing better to do than justify their existence.

    Besides, if I believed in a monarchy, I would have voted for BHO.

    0

  9. EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Yes why don’t we just have one ruler like a king!

    Don’t ever put words in my mouth again. I simply believe that we’re over-regulated and that is a direct result of too many people with nothing better to do than justify their existence.

    Or it could be the result of a central authority acting outside its charter some two years after it was adopted on the premise of implied powers.

    0

  10. Robert A. McReynolds:

    EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Yes why don’t we just have one ruler like a king!

    Don’t ever put words in my mouth again. I simply believe that we’re over-regulated and that is a direct result of too many people with nothing better to do than justify their existence.

    Or it could be the result of a central authority acting outside its charter some two years after it was adopted on the premise of implied powers.

    Disagree completely. I am moving from my lovely 40,000 population beach resort simply because of the horrifying power of the city council to plant unwanted trees on private property and force citizens to spend $2500 to install water recycling on their property in one of the most tropical environments in this country. Are you kidding me?

    The straw that broke the camel’s back is that 5-6,000 sq foot homes can now ignore 30 feet lot requirements between neighbors and can build right up to property lines so we can all hear every word, sneeze, lawn blower from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day of the week.

    Almost forgot that our small airport for private jets has now been expanded to accept Lear jets so often at 3:00 a.m. I feel as if I’m living in Pearl Harbor circa 1941.

    Just loving the effects of unchecked local govt! There is absolutely no reason to think that the Feds are the sole enemies.

    0

  11. EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Yes why don’t we just have one ruler like a king!

    Don’t ever put words in my mouth again. I simply believe that we’re over-regulated and that is a direct result of too many people with nothing better to do than justify their existence.

    Or it could be the result of a central authority acting outside its charter some two years after it was adopted on the premise of implied powers.

    Disagree completely. I am moving from my lovely 40,000 population beach resort simply because of the horrifying power of the city council to plant unwanted trees on private property and force citizens to spend $2500 to install water recycling on their property in one of the most tropical environments in this country. Are you kidding me?

    The straw that broke the camel’s back is that 5-6,000 sq foot homes can now ignore 30 feet lot requirements between neighbors and can build right up to property lines so we can all hear every word, sneeze, lawn blower from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day of the week.

    Almost forgot that our small airport for private jets has now been expanded to accept Lear jets so often at 3:00 a.m. I feel as if I’m living in Pearl Harbor circa 1941.

    Just loving the effects of unchecked local govt! There is absolutely no reason to think that the Feds are the sole enemies.

    It sounds like a nice community in a good location got overrun by nouveau newbies who elected a city council to go progressive.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  12. Local governments are petty and officious and always a matter of “the beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on”.  The Federal government is remote an high-handed and completely misinformed about the needs of individual communities.

    Yet it seems like people can’t get enough of government, at any level: why, they actually, voluntarily, subject themselves to the powers of those proliferating petty fiefdoms a/k/a “planned communities”.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  13. MJBubba:
    It sounds like a nice community in a good location got overrun by nouveau newbies who elected a city council to go progressive.

    Because many of the residents in my town own second or even third houses, they often don’t know what is going on with the city council and give it free reign. This is why I believe that all tiers of govt can be destructive. There is just too much of it period and too many people trying to justify their jobs. We used to call this “busy work.”

    Before Trump’s beleaguered presidency, I would have told you that one of the biggest political nightmares occurs, in fact, at the local level. See: NYC. Mayor Giuliani was a miracle worker to have accomplished what he did there.

    0

  14. EThompson:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Do we need mayors, city councils, governors, state legislatures…

    Well I did mention 435 Feds.

    I’m just uncertain what state legislatures do that governors, mayors and/or city councils can’t.

    I favor powerful state governments expressly as a counterbalance to a strong federal government.  This is not going well at the moment.  I would like to see it go better rather than fold up shop.  I tend to think of Federal government and state on down government with a different part of my brain.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  15. Haakon Dahl:
    This is not going well at the moment.  I would like to see it go better rather than fold up shop.

    No argument here but I hope you agree that all tiers of govt need trimming.

    Example: Why does a town of 40,000 need as many City Council members as NYC and a mayor? (Of course, I even question NYC numbers because they appear to cause more trouble than they’re worth!) The city will never have a Giuliani again who was able to reign in that beast.

    0

  16. EThompson:

    Haakon Dahl:
    This is not going well at the moment.  I would like to see it go better rather than fold up shop.

    No argument here but I hope you agree that all tiers of govt need trimming.

    Example: Why does a town of 40,000 need as many City Council members as NYC and a mayor? (Of course, I even question NYC numbers because they appear to cause more trouble than they’re worth!) The city will never have a Giuliani again who was able to reign in that beast.

    Local people get the local government they deserve.   I recall when Nashville consolidated with Davidson County.   In order to make it work they created a monster; a metro council with 35 regular districts, plus five more council positions for at-large members.   That was a way to preserve an office for all the major players at the time.   Long after all those people are gone, the system has, as you might say, quirks.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  17. MJBubba:
    Local people get the local government they deserve.

    Couldn’t agree more as to state and national constituencies. My point is that negligent and aggressively anti-capitalist behavior occurs on all levels.

    The Founders knew that democracy and capitalism had to be nurtured. We, as a country, have failed to do so. Instead, we attack our founding principles because it takes work, effort, the ability to fail and recover and an adherence to quite challenging truths.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  18. EThompson:
    Example: Why does a town of 40,000 need as many City Council members as NYC and a mayor?

    No clue.  Sounds like a bad deal.  But a government unit with an executive should have a representative body as well.  At any level, I would prefer some added overhead and some bump and grind to a perilously efficient executive.

    Not all councils should be PAID, of course, as tying one’s interests to government will shape one’s position toward those of government, which I think we all regard as a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless.

    So I don’t know about the specif example you cite.  But there should certainly be *a* council, which was RMcR’s point, as I take it.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply