Go figure, the liberal icon that we know as Harvard University, with its equally liberal tower of Babel department of Economics just released a study. What I found so interesting was that they dismissed the entire economic model that was used during the "Great Depression" and which was trotted out by the liberals/progressives as the solution for our current problems.
In fact they trashed the economic model that we are constantly being told is the solution to our problems even while they admit that it has been taught to "generations" of college students
So it turns out that we PROLONGED the "Great Depression" and now Obama/Pelosi/Reid have PROLONGED the current recession . . . so says the folks at Harvard. No doubt the progressive liberal economics hero John Meynard Keynes is spinning in his grave.
The report is a fairly long, but here is the conclusion:
CONCLUSION*
A few weeks after President Obama’s victory in the 2008
election, adviser Rahm Emanuel quipped that “[y]ou never
want a serious crisis to go to waste...[because* it] provides the
opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”27
Emanuel was correct: The situation in which the new Admini‐
stration found itself constituted an unusual political dynamic
that, properly used, would have allowed the Obama Admini‐
stration both to stimulate the economy and make it more pro‐
ductive over the long haul.
The Administration should have endorsed a stimulus package
based on a repeal of the corporate income tax and reductions in
employment taxes. This policy would have accomplished its
stated goals, and the budgetary implications would have been
less negative than those of the package ultimately adopted be‐
cause this alternative plan would have enhanced rather than de‐
tracted from economic efficiency. This approach would also
have been difficult for Republicans to oppose.
Yet the Administration did not take this approach, presuma‐
bly because its true goals were not just economic stimulus. In‐
stead, the Administration wanted to reward its constituencies
(unions, environmentalists, public education) and increase the
size and scope of government. This tactic is consistent with the
Administration’s policies in general. Across the board, it has
taken a big government, redistributionist approach, whether re‐
garding housing, unions, health, the auto industry, trade, anti‐
trust, or financial regulation. The Administration’s view appears
to be that government is better than individuals at deciding how
taxpayers get to spend their money and that government should
engineer large transfers from richer to poorer.
LINK TO FULL TEXT => http://www.realclearmarkets.com/blog/519.pdf
It really is worth reading the text. It goes on to show how spending money to reduce energy/create green jobs can actually cost more and use more energy, while not actually reducing unemployment but rather shifting employment to different sectors, etc etc. There is lots of good stuff in here.
In fact they trashed the economic model that we are constantly being told is the solution to our problems even while they admit that it has been taught to "generations" of college students
So it turns out that we PROLONGED the "Great Depression" and now Obama/Pelosi/Reid have PROLONGED the current recession . . . so says the folks at Harvard. No doubt the progressive liberal economics hero John Meynard Keynes is spinning in his grave.
The report is a fairly long, but here is the conclusion:
CONCLUSION*
A few weeks after President Obama’s victory in the 2008
election, adviser Rahm Emanuel quipped that “[y]ou never
want a serious crisis to go to waste...[because* it] provides the
opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”27
Emanuel was correct: The situation in which the new Admini‐
stration found itself constituted an unusual political dynamic
that, properly used, would have allowed the Obama Admini‐
stration both to stimulate the economy and make it more pro‐
ductive over the long haul.
The Administration should have endorsed a stimulus package
based on a repeal of the corporate income tax and reductions in
employment taxes. This policy would have accomplished its
stated goals, and the budgetary implications would have been
less negative than those of the package ultimately adopted be‐
cause this alternative plan would have enhanced rather than de‐
tracted from economic efficiency. This approach would also
have been difficult for Republicans to oppose.
Yet the Administration did not take this approach, presuma‐
bly because its true goals were not just economic stimulus. In‐
stead, the Administration wanted to reward its constituencies
(unions, environmentalists, public education) and increase the
size and scope of government. This tactic is consistent with the
Administration’s policies in general. Across the board, it has
taken a big government, redistributionist approach, whether re‐
garding housing, unions, health, the auto industry, trade, anti‐
trust, or financial regulation. The Administration’s view appears
to be that government is better than individuals at deciding how
taxpayers get to spend their money and that government should
engineer large transfers from richer to poorer.
It really is worth reading the text. It goes on to show how spending money to reduce energy/create green jobs can actually cost more and use more energy, while not actually reducing unemployment but rather shifting employment to different sectors, etc etc. There is lots of good stuff in here.