Comments on: A bad idea whose time has come–to go away!

By: Roger’s Rules » Scylla and Charybdis, or regulation, risk, and the passion for “fairness”

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:26:26 +0000

[...] the role of the state, and of regulation, in every aspect of our social and economic life. But as I have observed in this space before, the real issue is not regulation per se “but unintelligent and overbearing [...]

By: Roger’s Rules » Alexis de Toqueville, man of the moment

Roger’s Rules » Alexis de Toqueville, man of the moment — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:08:16 +0000

[...] readers know of my fondness (and here) for Alex de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, first published in 1835 but still [...]

By: serfs: Roger Kimbal on Obama’s Agenda

serfs: Roger Kimbal on Obama’s Agenda — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:04:51 +0000

[...] discourage that troubling independence. Their ultimate aim to to make everyone a ward of the State. In an earlier post, I drew on Friedrich Hayek to explain this: The biggest challenge we face now is not to our stock [...]

By: Roger’s Rules » The 2 percent solution, or, the tyranny of the majority returns with a vengeance

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:56:33 +0000

[...] that troubling independence. Their ultimate aim to to make everyone a ward of the State. In an earlier post, I drew on Friedrich Hayek to explain this: The biggest challenge we face now is not to our stock [...]

By: You Ever Notice that Fans of Socialism Always Want to Be Giving the Orders? : The Sundries Shack

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:53:28 +0000

[...] Kimball on the return of central planning and the spurious claims about our economy: The next time someone bemoans the evil of “laissez-faire capitalism” to you, utter the number [...]

By: Steynian 303 « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 303 « Free Canuckistan! — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:08:29 +0000

[...] A BAD IDEA whose time has come– to go away! by Roger Kimball …. [...]

By: RASCO

RASCO — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:26:09 +0000

What is often forgotten about the Clinton years budget cuts is the entire cut came on the back of the Military. From weapons systems to boots ready to hit the ground, to ships, planes, and tanks -the budget was slashed. Social programs continued their upward growth.
The Bush administration added the military budget back in and let the democrats boost the social spending to keep them on board in the early years of the war. The administration also added in the widely demanded Medicare drug program and increased spending in education. The democrats complaint with the administration was Bush did not do enough, seniors still have to pay too much and children in big cities still are in poor schools. Spending is now rampant.
Social spending is now unstoppable. Much of it is now locked in mandates. It all seemed so easy for years. Want more benefits for this group or that group, make a program. Spend a billion here or there, make a constituent group happy. Get poor people into houses, force banks to make loans with low interest, in fact make that interest only. Bankers believed the loans government “backed” and took it another step forward and reduced requirements for virtually everyone. If we can do all this why not national health care and national retirement accounts for everyone? The mentality went viral. Mr. Obama now propositions share the wealth openly.
I am not sure there is a single group that can be blamed, it is generational. The principles of free enterprise for markets and liberty for citizens have to be relearned. That citizens are smarter and wiser by making their own choices in markets and experiencing the consequences of their actions seems intuitive. That local electors spending money and enacting laws in the community where the effect is quickly felt and realized, teaches much stronger lessons on the effects of governing with the net result strengthening the country as a whole. These ideas are no longer obvious to the rising generations of politicians and voters.
Our politics of the last 20 years shows the increasing belief that government is the best controller of the economy, the arbitrator between individuals, and teacher of morals. Why the United States was able to shine in so many areas compared to other nations had little to do with natural resources and nothing to do with genetics. It is certainly not the government efficiency. It was the collective wisdom and intelligence of the population garnered from millions of individual choices over all aspects of their lives backed by a good moral value system. In short liberty along with government close to the people with a strong underlying moral value system. We have moved away from both and now must pay a price.

By: David Kern

David Kern — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:57:49 +0000

Touting the virtues of the free market is all fine and good, but I find it interesting that such an intelligent analyst as Roger Kimball would miss, or at least not decry, the real reason free market ideas have fallen into disrepute. That is, 99% of people who advocate a free market do so up to the point that their profit turns to loss, at which point they clamour for bailouts, use the courts to crush upstart competitors, etc. Let’s put it this way; there’s no such thing as a laissez-faire capitalist in a foxhole.

By: Val Dusek

Val Dusek — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:27:18 +0000

It is odd that after denouncing government planning and regulation Roger Kimball lists a series of items that merit optimism, or at least not terrible pessimism, concerning the economy, which are in fact mostly massive government interventions. I suppose the fact that Paulson let Morgan Stanley’s worse competitor fail while shoring up firms of his friends is seen as avoiding the terror of government intervention. Letting Ehrlichman’s former assistant who probably oversaw Watergate but slipped out of federal investigation (clever fellow)take 700 billion to do with as he pleased and dole out to his friends among the banks (who then refuse to lend money)is to be praised as the free market at its best and not government intervention.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:34:41 +0000

“Can anyone really be saying this in the 21st century?”

The logical underpinning of statist economics are nonexistent. These doctrines were conclusively shown to be mistaken by no later than the last quarter of the previous century. But this madness has little to do with per se logic. It’s instead about power and the seeking of financial gain. The pathetic arguments of John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr are useful to “elites” who want to run things. Those who truly comprehend economic reality realize that a mostly hands off approach is the best way to increase the wealth of the citizenry. But what good is that to ego tripping and power hungry “elites”?