These issues aren't Republican or Democrat, left or right, liberal or conservative. They are simply economics, and wish as you might, bad economics will sink any economy no matter how much they believe this time things are different. They aren't.I was on the White House staff as George Shultz's economist in the Office of Management and Budget when Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls, the dollar was taken off gold, import surcharges were implemented, and other similar measures were enacted from a panicked decision made in August of 1971 at Camp David.
I witnessed, like everyone else, the consequences of another panicked decision to cover up the Watergate break-in. I saw up close and personal Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush succumb to panicked decisions to raise taxes, as well as Jimmy Carter's emergency energy plan, which included wellhead price controls, excess profits taxes on oil companies, and gasoline price controls at the pump.
The consequences of these actions were disastrous. Just look at the stock market from the post-Kennedy high in early 1966 to the pre-Reagan low in August of 1982. The average annual real return for U.S. assets compounded annually was -6% per year for 16 years. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a bear market. And it is something that you may well experience again. Yikes!
Then we have this administration's panicked Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course the deer-in-the-headlights Mr. Bernanke in his bungling of monetary policy.
There are many more examples, but none hold a candle to what's happening right now. Twenty-five years down the line, what this administration and Congress have done will be viewed in much the same light as what Herbert Hoover did in the years 1929 through 1932. Whenever people make decisions when they are panicked, the consequences are rarely pretty. We are now witnessing the end of prosperity.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
It is NOT economics or markets period we had a MORAL MELTDOWN and all the little meetings and stealing more money and putting future generations into finanical bondage will not fix a MORAL problem . No Nation has ever disappeared because they were poor ,but none has survived affluence
Rawhider
Christian: Do you really have to harp endlessly about the end of civilization as we know it. I'd have thought that the reality of lay offs at your job would have punctured your romantic attachment to scenarios of misery and doom. Surely seeing people you care for being damaged by the economic storm in the newspaper business would cause you to snap out of this line of posting. Your once wonderful blog has become a very toxic read.
You don't see the economist who was the architect of the supply-side revolution publishing a piece in the Wall Street Journal accusing the government of botching the economic crisis a la Herbert Hoover as worthy of commentary? Er, wow.
I guess I never will fathom the mindset that sees people who say, "There's a train coming, we'd better get off the tracks" as "toxic" henny-pennies who really ought to be making people feel better about remaining on the tracks.
Obama regrets that the courts were not set up for forcing wealth redistribution.
Maybe if he talked a bit more about wealth creation rather than wealth distribution his detractors would not be so forceful.
Arthur Laffer talked a lot about wealth creation and much was created under Reagan.
If we are short of energy and need more energy, should we be concerned about redistribution of what we have or should we be working to get more energy?
Well, I say the way to solve a wealth or energy or food problem is to have more of it. But then again who am I to know? Obama, the One most are listening to advocates wealth redistribution instead of wealth creation, so I suppose that is what we are going to have; wealth redistribution but not much wealth creation.
I have to wonder about any analysis that describes a stock market low in 1982, the second year of the first Reagan admnistration, as pre-Reagan.
Laffer has been thoroughly discredited. Two years ago Laffer appeared on an episode of Kudlow and Company and ridiculed Peter Schiff for saying that our economy will collapse within two years. Watch the video for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o
Why do you give credibility to an economist who failed to realize he was in the midst of the biggest financial bubble that ever existed?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.