Comments on: David Stockman’s economic Neverland Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:47:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: keebo Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:38:31 +0000 I see, so what we should keep doing then is allow the Federal government and Federal Reserve to continue picking winners and losers in the economy like our commie brethren in China and the ex-Soviets. Allow the theft of hard earned money from average Americans through excessive (overall within the economy) taxation, silly economic schemes, monetary debasement, interest rate manipulation, and periodic financial fiascos attributable to the above entities.

The above bozos have gotten us to a place where multi-trillion dollar bailouts (add in the theft by low rate bail-out of the banks, stupid consumers, and dumb businesses) are used and do little or nothing in return other than dig a deeper hole. What idiotic, corrupt, children we have running things. Where do you think enormous moronic debt gets us and who pays? Why continually enabled them by listening to those espousing the status quo; as if nothing else can or should be done?

By: Mctimm339 Mon, 08 Apr 2013 02:42:20 +0000 Presumably your academic background in politics qualifies you to critique the economic opinions of someone you suggest is a mere Harvard Divinity School graduate but who just happened to work for president Ronald Reagan as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Am I missing something here?

By: AJ876 Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:31:40 +0000 Stockman, along with Ron Paul, Mark Fabre, and Peter Schiff, are the only rational minds out there when you talk about econ.

By: Missinginaction Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:41:14 +0000 I laughed when the author wrote that Stockman is long on abuse (of past and current practices) and short on economic analysis.

Take it from a guy who earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Economics. If you want to sell books, go short on Economic analysis.

Mr. Wapshott, here’s an idea for a future column. How about exploring the idea that neither the Krugman’s or the Stockman’s of the world are “right”.

Both sides of this argument work from the premise that capitalism works. They differ as to how or how not to manage it. Over the past few months it’s occurred to me that capitalism itself may not be a sustainable economic system.

By: OneOfTheSheep Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:43:23 +0000 So we keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Who hit the “off” button on our MINDS?

By: pavoter1946 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:23:49 +0000 [But all those others who advocate an easy return to the pre-Roosevelt days would do their followers and the rest of us a favor by putting some hard figures on what their radical plans would cost.]

And this is when it might get interesting. How many will jump on the Stockman ideas, argue for them, but ignore the pain it will cause. Especially if they see themselves coming out ahead.

It has been said if you get 100 economists in a room, you will get 150 solutions. Maybe that is the problem. Solutions, or the failure of solutions only become known years later. 10 years from now, the Fed actions to stave off a depression may look like genius. Or a try that missed the mark.

[He even accuses his old boss Ronald Reagan, a
conservative paragon, of being fatally mistaken about slashing personal taxes and about encouraging “the highest peacetime spending share of GDP.”]

This might be his biggest sin. He has dared to challenge those who worship Reagan.

By: KCapuder Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:18:40 +0000 That Stockman’s analysis in not grounded in theory is, in fact, a plus. He is not forced by theory to ignore what is right in front of his eyes. He does name a cause for the depression: the massive buildup of debt in the 1920s. Similarly, the explosion of debt,from the end of the Breton Woods system until 2008 caused the the current set of crises. Clearly, a further expansion of debt cannot solve the crisis no matter what prescription Stockman would endorse. Yet mainstream Economics and politicians are mostly bumblers as they can’t create solutions without doing so. It is they who suffer the effects of theory. There are no painless solutions. The remaining question is who will suffer the pain? Something truly radical might also involve restructuring the financial systems, both domestically and internationally. Not a step that the clueless and hapless are likely to undertake.
The Economic nationalist view is Stockman’s real weakness. But is also the second biggest reason that muddling through is the only policy option that will be attempted.

By: QuietThinker Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:59:23 +0000 LysanderTucker almost makes one interesting point in his comment, competition between currencies. The proper competition between currencies is the economic competition between national states. This means currencies should be tied directly to national states. Ignoring this in Europe has led to some rather severe problems.

Sorry that neither his nor my comment really address the article.

By: LysanderTucker Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:00:46 +0000 Whoever controls the credit and money supply has ultimate control of an economy. Either it is controlled by the government with legal tender laws, currency monopoly and nationalized credit bureaus requiring continuous government intervention, or it is open to competition and controlled by the true economic order. Without a freely competing currency, without localized credit, a free market cannot exist. There’s no half way. Individuals should be able to choose which currency the keep their store of value in just as they choose which can of corn to buy. If your currency inflates and holds no value, people will cash out. Businesses should be allowed to pay employees in and accept payment from any currency they choose.

The one simple reason this will never be allowed to happen is taxation, which is why there’s no coincidence in how the tax rates exploded after the Federal Reserve Act. And lets not forget that they confiscated gold once before in the past to make sure their newly created currency had no opposition.

Competition first and always. That’s the only way to economic order.

“But all those others who advocate an easy return to the pre-Roosevelt days would do their followers and the rest of us a favor by putting some hard figures on what their radical plans would cost.”

So your saying that all those figures given out post-Roosevelt were correct? Anything more than hot air to appease the masses and maintain faith in their benevolence? Economics is not a mathematical equation and is impossible to predict. If it was, we would have no boom and bust cycle. The “give me insurance that this will work” attitude is what has given the government massive amounts of economic control and caused the whole mess. Papa government was not meant to be an economic insurance company.

By: KelThuz Sat, 06 Apr 2013 04:25:35 +0000 Well, I should have expected reuters’s writers to be unashamed liars. Since when Hoover’s policies were model of hands-off, laissez-faire? Have this author ever read “America’s Great Depression” by Murray Rothbard, which painstakingly analyzes the failed proto-Keynesian Hoover’s policies of large public spending? Are you crazy, Mr Wapshott, or just plain ignorant? Or perhaps you are just an ordinary and typical lying journalist?
I obviously stopped reading this pile of pseudo-journalism after your take on Hoover. I do believe that non-sense statements compound from there though. You are a disgrace, sir.