Monday, November 21, 2011

Miscellaneous 102

1) In order to solve a problem, you need to come up with something that is both tangible AND realistic. And, yes, that is why I strongly support Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, and the Gang of 6 - at least as a starting point - for deficit reduction....The fact of the matter here, folks, is that we simply CANNOT appreciably close the deficit with either spending-cuts or revenue enhancements alone. WE HAVE TO DO BOTH, and everybody has to sacrifice, a little. And, I'm telling you, if we did pass something like this, and accompanied it with some sort of regulatory reform (strengthen the good regs, eliminate the crappy ones), too, the markets in fact WOULD respond. Businesses - they have to know that we're serious and passing something like this would show them that we totally are.............2) To repeat, I would also institute a comprehensive regulatory reform package. We have to, folks. The Feds are literally piling on thousands upon thousands of new rules and regs annually (some of them downright silly; the packaging of walnuts, for example), and it is absolutely stifling the creation of new businesses. If I had my druthers, I would go line by line and a) reinforce the good rules and regulations and b) eliminate the bald-faced crap.............3) Hoover and FDR essentially did everything that Keynesian economics prescribes; massive amounts of deficit spending, huge public works initiatives, a palpable loosening of credit, and a heavy emphasis on central planning, and the Great Depression lasted 12 years. Harding did the exact opposite of what Keynesian theory prescribes; major cuts in federal spending, an allowing of the private sector to flourish, and an actual tightening of credit, and the depression of 1921 lasted less than 18 months....Now, this isn't necessarily to say that this proves anything. As I've stated before, economics isn't an area in which controlled experimentation can happen (and, hence, causality inferred). But it is, at the very least, interesting, no?............4) Just to be fair and balanced here, stifling levels of regulation don't just happen under Democratic Presidents. In 2007, for example (the next to last year of the Bush administration), nearly 4,000 (!!) new regulations hit the books that year alone. Thank you, President Bush.

4 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

Right now, the best option may be to do nothing. Doing nothing will cut the deficit by $7.1 trillion dollars over 10 years.

Rusty Shackelford said...

The most dangerous place in Washington today? Between one of those 12 idiots on the so-called super committee and a TV camera.

A total lack of leadership by Obama.

Marcus said...

Will: The Super Committee blew it...plain and simple. It came down to the parties positioning themselves for the election. The Pols seem to believe that the election is going to produce a clear majority and THEN they will produce a "plan"...Heaven help us.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Interesting stuff, Jerry, and, yes, it looks good on paper. But I fear that allowing ALL the Bush tax-cuts to expire might in fact be harmful to the economy. Also, the reductions in Medicare reimbursements to doctors would undoubtedly go over like a lead balloon.............Rusty, in my opinion, Obama should have come out for Simpson-Bowles (at least as a starting point) early on and shown some of that leadership. I think that he thought that the economy was going to rally better and that he could kick the can down the road. Oops.............Marcus, agreed. If it were up to me, I'd vote all 535 of 'em (actually, I might keep Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin) out of office and start from scratch.