http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

I wouldn’t even be surprised if we found out that Keynes, Obama, Pelosi, Krugman, etc were among the adults surveyed…

And of course Goldman.

I’m not sure why you think that Democrats are intent on increasing the size of government- certainly since Carter, conservatives have continuously increased the size of government far more than democratic presidents! Remember, the increase in deficit that Obama faces today has little to do with his policies, but due to the recession and inherited tax cuts.

You make a very good point that conservatives fundamentally don’t believe in government, which is why they have tended to be poor at actually governing.

The blind belief you attribute to liberals about the joys of large government has a parallel in the market and corporate worship of the conservative movement. You seem to have forgotten that all sorts of market failures occur pretty regularly- not because the market is inherently flawed, but because we don’t always have perfect information, distortions, externalities, monopolies, etc. In other words, because we are human.

Also, that while corporations are very effective at maximizing shareholder profit, it’s silly to expect them to act in any way contrary to that goal. Which means- smart money will take advantage of dumb money on the street, power companies will pollute freely and pharma and agribusiness will be less than forthcoming about the risks of their products. Not because they’re evil, but because they’re not really designed or intended to do anything other than drive return… Why on earth would we let them regulate themselves? Even Greenspan, an acolyte of Rand, admitted that his worldview was wrong! What happened to the mistrust of institutionalized power?

The Democratic party of the past 20 years has learned a lot from the years in the wilderness… The Republicans are intellectually incoherent- I’ve heard elected Republicans castigate Obama for wanting to use executive power to exert his will over the country, and at the same time try to give him the authority to arrest, detain and torture american citizens at will! Does this make any sense?

As for civil liberties, it was your party’s administration and congress who committed the greatest crimes against traditional american liberties! Who launched an unnecessary war that tied up our military while allowing Afghanistan to go to pieces? Do you not that think that this did more to embolden our enemies than anything Obama has done?

What is the Republican answer to any of this? More tax cuts for the wealthy ?Invading Iran? Arresting latinos?

Moving to Galt’s gulch?

Anyway, don’t take this is a celebration of the democratic party… There’s no shortage of corruption, parochialism and small mindedness there. But, compared to the current iteration of the party of Lincoln, they all look like Washingtons, Churchills and Lincolns…

Compared to what? The Progressive movement? Too funny. I love it when a progressive takes a kernel from an article written by a conservative or libertarian and runs with it like they had some brilliant revelation. Yes, I’ve heard of Julian Sanchez..

It’s almost as much fun as when they start quoting founding fathers as if they actually have an ounce of respect for their principles that made this country so great.

Hantu stated: “You have essentially decided that if the objective evidence no longer conforms with your world views, you disbelieve the evidence, and that the only reliable voices are your own propagandists.”

What “objective evidence” have you brought to the table? You have supplied ONLY your opinions without supplying a shred of evidence that your claims are even true. Sorry, fallacies and proof surrogates like, “Everyone knows…” are not evidence. You then turn around and use the Alinskyite tactics of calling economists that blow your claims out of the water “propagandists.”

I guess, CNN, who ran the “Economists: The stimulus didn’t help” headline is run by a bunch of right wing propagandists? Sorry, the only one closing his mind to evidence seems to be you.

Hantu stated: “I sympathize, because the abject failure of the conservative movement over the past decade must truly be intellectually humiliating and disheartening. The ridiculous alignment of free market ideaologues with social christian conservatives, expeditionary foreign policy and the racially resentful seems so silly in retrospect. The tea party will give it a last hurrah, and the whole edifice will eventually fall apart….”

Yeah, anyone who considers himself a conservative or a classical liberal must be a government hating, bible beating, war mongering, racist.

Of course, it was the free marketers that expanded the wealth of this country to unthought of proportions, the social christian conservatives who were behind the abolitionist movement and ran the underground railroad, and the war mongerers who fought back communism (for now).

Meanwhile, it was the progressives that segregated the military (Wilson), jailed people for free speech (Wilson again), created the Negro Project to kill African-American babies (Sanger), called people of color, Jews, and Catholics “human weeds” (Sanger again), had orgasms over eugenics (the entire movement), advocated review boards to determine who was worthy to live (GBShaw), asked scientists to create a “humane gas” to kill the “unworthy” a decade before the Nazis (Shaw again), loved the Nazis and Mussolini until it became unpopular to do so (the entire American Progressive movement), taught Goebbels the value and tactics of propaganda (Wilson), gave us the “4 Minute Men” (Wilson again)…

The list goes on and on.

Hantu stated as he watched Olbermann and Maddow: “One hopes that Burke will displace Beck and Limbaugh soon…”

I think bigger and bigger government will lead to a worse quality of life, worse medical care, reduced civil liberties, and more corruption. Who you know will be more important than what you know.

I fear that a weakened United States will encourage the
growth of aggressive tyrannies abroad. We’re already seeing that in Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

In short, I think the liberals’ likely political victory will result in a policy defeat for all.

You have essentially decided that if the objective evidence no longer conforms with your world views, you disbelieve the evidence, and that the only reliable voices are your own propagandists.

I sympathize, because the abject failure of the conservative movement over the past decade must truly be intellectually humiliating and disheartening. The ridiculous alignment of free market ideaologues with social christian conservatives, expeditionary foreign policy and the racially resentful seems so silly in retrospect. The tea party will give it a last hurrah, and the whole edifice will eventually fall apart….

One hopes that Burke will displace Beck and Limbaugh soon…

I suspect the reason is that the earmark money is badly spent. I think it mostly goes to friends of the Congressman or Senator or to those who made big campaign donations. So, the earmark money isn’t distributed in the way best calculated to help the entire district.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDI2ZjliNDExMDM3MjI4ZGE5ZDBhZjUwYTY3YWU2MjU=

Not exactly relevant to this specific conversation but an unsubstantiated point made on this blog numerous times by Steven and his progressive minions.

GWU studied spending on regulation and found that spending increased by 31% of inflation adjusted dollars under the Bush Administration.

http://www.gwu.edu/~regstudies/Reg%20Budget%202010-05-18.pdf

Of course, to a progressive, no amount is ever enough…

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100527/D9FV6P5O0.html

Thanks for allowing the veil to slip a little more.

The truth of the issue is this. Progressives have no interest in the “science” of economics other than how it can be manipulated to achieve its SOCIETAL goals, control over the individual through bigger (and eventually totalitarian) government. The “economists” that you would cite (if you ever did), would be of that ilk, like Krugman. You then claim that they are the “mainstream” without ever providing data that backs the assertion and fall into a proof surrogate and groupthink fallacy.

My freshman college students could point that out to you.

You then fill the air with euphemisms like “Progressive”, “modern”, “mainstream”, and “practical.” Unfortunately, there is no substance (or actual evidence) behind it.

The real agenda of the Progressives was outed in the last century (so they began calling themselves “liberals”) and is beginning to be again.

You then deny involvement in a proof surrogate, only to fall into the same proof surrogate later in the same sentence. If you would like, I could recommend a good critical thinking textbook that explains to you, in simple language, what a proof surrogate is.

THIS is evidence: Economists: The stimulus didn’t help

“In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years — but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.”

“About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act,…”

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

The actual results show the that stimulus failed.

Should have expected a Rothbard fan… The problem, of course, should be obvious to anyone with an open mind-

Of course, it’d be better if private citizens and industry were spending. The magic question is- what happens when they don’t?

One answer is (Mises/Rothbard’s view)- Tough luck. It’s a needed de-leveraging, and let the chips (and asset prices) fall where they may, our system will rebuild afterwards. As for the legions of unemployed and now homeless- a better result than more government activity.

A more modern, practical view is that a simultaneous global unwinding can lead to a deflationary trap that is completely unnecessarily, and the government can mitigate this by implementing counter-cyclical fiscal policy- save when things are good, spend when things are bad. If intelligently designed, this can also create a mild safety net (unemployment benefits and health insurance) so ppl don’t lose everything because of an externality.

I don’t intend it as a proof surrogate, just pointing out that among the experts in a very complex field, there is broad agreement on some very basic things that you just don’t accept. And one of the two mainstream parties in this country shares your far from mainstream views…

You see to view smaller government as a valuable end in and of itself. I, and I believe, most progressives, don’t view big or small government as an end, but as means to an end.

Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.

One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/two_more_census_workers_blow_the_OqY80N3DBTvL17VmxKKR0O