Five short wharrgarbls

Can we all just agree that the neoliberal, market fundamentalist ideology of the past thirty years failed so we can get on with fixing the country's problems by attempting to find an economic balance between sensible regulation and true promotion of free trade, not just corporate welfare?

No, ok. Flame on then.

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party seem to have fallen in love with the idea of "make work" jobs.

just about every truly catastrophic economic event that has occurred in the last century -- from the depression to the savings and loan crisis to the current housing crisis -- all have at their root government intervention in the market.

The Democrats' answer to every problem is "raise taxes"

We are selling our children into slavery via debt -- to give seniors more comfortable retirements

our tax rates are creeping ever higher

a quick scan of the article provides this short list of fail.

I could spend the entire thread on just the walter williams quote.

Proving once again that reality has a strong liberal bias.

Couldn't even get past the first one without TFA making sure we all know he has no farking clue what he's talking about. The current crisis has it's roots in an utter failure of regulation by the government, not in government action.

I'd be fascinated to learn the explanation for why the economy is in the shiatter after 12 odd years of Republican rule (94-06 Congress, 00-08 WH). Seems like an assload of FAIL right there.

You want small government? Go to Peru. There are areas of Peru where there's next to no government. Try to accomplish something there. You can't because there is no support.

The wealth of the 70s, 80s and 90s was built by the investment of the 50s and 60s. All the money that was put into schools, roads, airports, electrification, and other infrastructure paid off because it gave smart ambitious people the support they needed to do exciting things.

Mr. Hawkins, what you've just blogged is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I stopped reading almost immediately when I realized he doesn't understand economics or the state of the economy.

Economics 101. Unemployment results from a lack of liquidity in spending. There are multiple causes for this. In our current case, it's a multi-fold problem. The constriction of credit on the consumer end that's been happening for about 2 years. The market panic that began in mid Sept 08 devastating the loan market to businesses. The resulting flight to safety on the part of investors, ranging from grandmas CD to the current t-bill panic. I would also include outsourcing lowering entry job pay for outgoing college students in this too.

How do you fix this.

First, end the panic. Good news is, we have experience putting market panics down in SE Asia. Bad News is that healthy countries had to intervene in order to make it happen. We have no healthy countries left. Regardless of that fact, this will likely be solved before summer, which will be to late for the up coming spring firings that result from the 4th quarter earnings reports.

Now, when the panic is gone the market still won't be liquid (btw, that's a fancy way of saying money is not changing hands). You do this by putting people to work, it beats the hell out of paying unemployment and welfare. Might as well build an infrastructure that will need to be maintained for all generations while your at it. Lets see, highway system? Uh, no it's pretty well built. Even if it weren't built, it's can only be maintained by the government. Oh wait, I know. An energy infrastructure that can be retooled on the fly as natural resources run out. It will pay for itself. The research will lead to better designs that can be used in unrelated technologies, like electric car engines. The bureaucracies that result from the companies earning money selling you electricity will employ everyone from a janitor to a lead engineer.

See, money has to change hands before your 401k can being to recover. The flight to safety beings to end when unemployment goes down and grandma will fold her CD into a 401k. Your assets increase in value, your loan power increases, your purchasing power increases. The guy working at Mc Dolands is directly connected to the CEO of a major bank.

The damage that is resulting from the panic happening today will last for YEARS. Things aren't going to be magically better once the mortgage securities market recovers. People are going to have to show to banks that their business idea can grow in a peak of a major recession.

The Fed does liquidity injects to the market as a matter of course. Rich people who own a $100 dollar security know there's always a market for it, because from time to time the Fed buys them. The Fed sells them off, so that purchasers always know there's a seller. Makes money change hands more reliably. This is normal and has been happening for a LONG time. Yet, someone people think that causing the employment market to become more liquid is bad.

Socialism for the rich, the middle class can defend for itself.

Whatever...

UnFark: The wealth of the 70s, 80s and 90s was built by the investment of the 50s and 60s. All the money that was put into schools, roads, airports, electrification, and other infrastructure paid off because it gave smart ambitious people the support they needed to do exciting things.

Yes, the implication that infrastructure upgrades, repairs and expansions are somehow "make-work" jobs is particularly dumb.

UnFark: You want small government? Go to Peru. There are areas of Peru where there's next to no government. Try to accomplish something there. You can't because there is no support.

This. I wish these fools would travel, see the world a bit, and realize that the most successful countries are the ones with competent government, not non-existent government.

Neeek: Couldn't even get past the first one without TFA making sure we all know he has no farking clue what he's talking about. The current crisis has it's roots in an utter failure of regulation by the government, not in government action.

The housing crisis is more a reform issue than a deregulation issue. More regulation was needed to prevent so many bad mortgage loans. But at the same time, too much regulation caused the government to encourage more mortgages to people with less credit and ability to pay (i.e. FHA loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Saying "we needed more regulation" or "we needed less regulation" misses the point. We just needed correct regulation.

/As for the article, it is pretty dumb.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: I stopped reading almost immediately when I realized he doesn't understand economics or the state of the economy.

Economics 101. Unemployment results from a lack of liquidity in spending. There are multiple causes for this. In our current case, it's a multi-fold problem. The constriction of credit on the consumer end that's been happening for about 2 years. The market panic that began in mid Sept 08 devastating the loan market to businesses. The resulting flight to safety on the part of investors, ranging from grandmas CD to the current t-bill panic. I would also include outsourcing lowering entry job pay for outgoing college students in this too.

How do you fix this.

First, end the panic. Good news is, we have experience putting market panics down in SE Asia. Bad News is that healthy countries had to intervene in order to make it happen. We have no healthy countries left. Regardless of that fact, this will likely be solved before summer, which will be to late for the up coming spring firings that result from the 4th quarter earnings reports.

Now, when the panic is gone the market still won't be liquid (btw, that's a fancy way of saying money is not changing hands). You do this by putting people to work, it beats the hell out of paying unemployment and welfare. Might as well build an infrastructure that will need to be maintained for all generations while your at it. Lets see, highway system? Uh, no it's pretty well built. Even if it weren't built, it's can only be maintained by the government. Oh wait, I know. An energy infrastructure that can be retooled on the fly as natural resources run out. It will pay for itself. The research will lead to better designs that can be used in unrelated technologies, like electric car engines. The bureaucracies that result from the companies earning money selling you electricity will employ everyone from a janitor to a lead engineer.

See, money has to change hands before your 401k can being to recover. The flight to safety beings to end when unemployment goes down and grandma will fold her CD into a 401k. Your assets increase in value, your loan power increases, your purchasing power increases. The guy working at Mc Dolands is directly connected to the CEO of a major bank.

The damage that is resulting from the panic happening today will last for YEARS. Things aren't going to be magically better once the mortgage securities market recovers. People are going to have to show to banks that their business idea can grow in a peak of a major recession.

The Fed does liquidity injects to the market as a matter of course. Rich people who own a $100 dollar security know there's always a market for it, because from time to time the Fed buys them. The Fed sells them off, so that purchasers always know there's a seller. Makes money change hands more reliably. This is normal and has been happening for a LONG time. Yet, someone people think that causing the employment market to become more liquid is bad.

Socialism for the rich, the middle class can defend for itself.

Whatever...

Or to put it another way....

you're playing command an conquer and you're all out of tiberium fields and your tanks are badly damaged. With no money to repair them or build new ones you send out a couple of infantrymen to hopefully find a powerup crate with some money in it.

Argh2: I'd be fascinated to learn the explanation for why the economy is in the shiatter after 12 odd years of Republican rule (94-06 Congress, 00-08 WH).

In other words, when Democrats have the presidency or Congress, they don't call the shots. But when Republicans have the presidency or Congress, they call the shots.

At least you are honest about your blatant hypocrisy.

Just in case these points aren't completely obvious...

What shouldn't be missed is the other side of the equation: much of the money paid in taxes to the government would otherwise be spent, thereby creating jobs. Furthermore, since the government is less efficient than private industry and because in most cases, people are better able to fill their own needs with their own money than the government can, the "make work" job process is inherently inefficient.

1. We're talking about borrowing money to increase spending, not raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession is actually a bad idea, but that's not relevant here.
2. During a recession people sit on their money and buy up government bonds, because they know consumer spending is down so there are very grim earning prospects. So, no, very little of the money would be spent creating jobs. As for filling their own needs, the fact is that the stimulus checks went largely to pay off debt, not spending.

The federal government is inevitably slower, dumber, and less competent than private industry. Moreover, just about every truly catastrophic economic event that has occurred in the last century -- from the depression to the savings and loan crisis to the current housing crisis -- all have at their root government intervention in the market.

1. Tell that to GM and the wonderful super-huge banks which would've gone bust without the bailout. You're confusing perfect competition with oligopoly (the latter dominates the US economy).
2. Bubbles are caused by euphoria (thanks, galbraith), greed, and herd mentality, not government intervention.

That's why the partial nationalization of this country's banks and auto industry should absolutely terrify people. There is absolutely nothing that should make anyone think that an "auto czar" or some other bureaucratic flunky who's answerable to Congress would do anything to help make these businesses more viable over the long-term. It's quite the opposite, actually.

Might actually have a point, but do we really prefer for them to go bankrupt?

"Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs." -- Walter Williams

1. Spending time with one's family also has value, in this case more value for the person than an extra $140. So what's wrong with that?
2. The government uses that money itself, creating transactions.

The Democrats' answer to every problem is "raise taxes" and now that they have a large majority in D.C., they will get to do exactly that over the next few years.

However, the more you raise taxes, the more economic activity is retarded, and the more the economy slows. We cannot massively expand the size of the federal government and erase the deficit almost entirely on the backs of the rich without dramatically slowing down the growth of our economy over the long term.

Since the current and future prosperity of this country hinges on the economy continuing to grow, we need to do everything we can to keep taxes as low as possible for everyone -- poor, rich, and middle-class.

1. Obama would only raise taxes on rich people, actually cut it for others. And people with lower incomes are more likely to spend that money, because they actually have important needs that are unmet. The rich people will save it to offset their huge losses in the stockmarket this year, and so not contribute to spending.
2. The problem right now is there is not enough spending going on. There is excess capacity for the demand, so in the short-term there is no need for investment. A sacrifice in long-term growth rate is fine if it gets you out of such a serious recession (if 5% growth is ok, isn't 4% ok? If not, why is 5% ok instead of demanding 6% or 7%? Is there a 'natural' or 'optimal' rate of growth? But -2% is definitely not ok)

We are selling our children into slavery via debt -- to give seniors more comfortable retirements, to hand out goodies to interest groups, and to bail out failing companies.
Worse yet, the majority of our political class in D.C. doesn't seem to care that we're selling our nation's economic birthright for a bowl of porridge.

You can cut the debt down when the economy is growing. You cannot do that during a recession (see the great depression as an example of how this made things worse). And you don't pay down the debt by cutting taxes across the board when you already have a deficit...

Because our tax rates are creeping ever higher and the number of regulations on businesses is continuing to expand, American companies are become less competitive with our overseas rivals in an increasingly global world.

There's a right way and a wrong way to handle this.

The right way is to cut taxes, decrease regulations, and work to open up more foreign markets to our goods. This would help keep goods here cheap, help American businesses become more competitive, and help spur job growth.

Those are not the reason the US has a trade deficit, and those actions will not reduce the trade deficit in any significant degree. But I agree opening markets is a good idea in general.


All clear?

coco ebert: UnFark: You want small government? Go to Peru. There are areas of Peru where there's next to no government. Try to accomplish something there. You can't because there is no support.

This. I wish these fools would travel, see the world a bit, and realize that the most successful countries are the ones with competent government, not non-existent government.fark Peru, go to Somalia. Now there is a true libertarian paradise.

helix400: Argh2: I'd be fascinated to learn the explanation for why the economy is in the shiatter after 12 odd years of Republican rule (94-06 Congress, 00-08 WH).

In other words, when Democrats have the presidency or Congress, they don't call the shots. But when Republicans have the presidency or Congress, they call the shots.

At least you are honest about your blatant hypocrisy.

No, it was a Democratic president with a Republican Congress for most of his two terms. Then it was a Republican president with a Republican majority in Congress for most of his two terms.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: Whatever...

I certainly wasn't expecting such insightful analysis from a Renowned transvestite sexologist!

/srsly, well done!

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Renowned transvestite sexologist: Whatever...

I certainly wasn't expecting such insightful analysis from a Renowned transvestite sexologist!

/srsly, well done!

Well, of COURSE Nina Hartley's ass would give preferential treatment to a renowned transvestite sexologist. They probably have a history together.

Hasn't the author realized that an economy that doesn't create any jobs won't do very good.

coco ebert: Well, of COURSE Nina Hartley's ass would give preferential treatment to a renowned transvestite sexologist.

Well, Thumbs Up to Chanel, too!

pjbreeze: Hasn't the author realized that an economy that doesn't create any jobs won't do very good.

I think he's a student of the Jello Biafra School of Economics.

helix400: Argh2: I'd be fascinated to learn the explanation for why the economy is in the shiatter after 12 odd years of Republican rule (94-06 Congress, 00-08 WH).

In other words, when Democrats have the presidency or Congress, they don't call the shots. But when Republicans have the presidency or Congress, they call the shots.

At least you are honest about your blatant hypocrisy.

The crisis began in 06. The unfolding of the panic was accurately predicted in 04 to happen in 08 by several economists (every paper I read that was written in 04 that predicted this said 08 was the year to watch). When the democrats got into office it was already too late, we (people who don't read economic papers for shiats and giggles, though for some reason I do now) just didn't know it then. The Fed thought there was no problem, even when in 07, it became painfully clear (at least in my reading of older articles) that something big was wrong.

I do want to remind everyone that the regulation and monitoring of the markets to PREVENT an economic crisis falls entirely in the executive branch. This was done during the great depression, so it shouldn't be new to anyone. There was NOTHING congress could do about it. When asked about what to do with sub-prime regulation, the Bush administrations answer was "do nothing". When confronted with a seizing securities market in 07 and an inversion in the T-bill market (which pretty much means a recession is coming), the Feds answer was "inflation is the problem, keep interest rates up, growth will continue". Well, at least inflation is no longer a problem. Good job guys.

On the plus side, at least he didn't endorse Ponzi schemes as the answer to all our economic problems.

Sad days for Jewish philanthropy (among others)

It should be pointed out to the author that the for the first 195 years of American economic history, we vehemently stood against Adam Smith's free trade policies. Alexander Hamilton, et al, were such opponents of Adam Smith that the system of trade protectionism, subsidy, and government infrastructure programs were known through most of our history as the American School of Economics. We were a lucky and blessed land, but it should be noted that this nation and system who absolutely shunned Adam Smith climbed from muddy colonial backwater to moon-landing superpower. We have not "stood up to the task for 200 years". Rather, we were the absolute kings of protectionism until about midway through the Nixon administration.

Oh, and as for the "because our tax rates are creeping ever higher", it should also be pointed out that, aside from four years in the first Bush administration, taxes currently are the lowest they've been in the last 77 years. They are substantially lower than they were during most of the Reagan administration (when the top marginal rate was 50%). Pre-WWI we did have lower taxes, although, as noted above, we had absolutely massive import duties (and the national government did far less, for good or bad).

Of course, I doubt that 1 college graduate in 100 could identify either the American School of Economics or the marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower administration. I'm not saying he necessarily should go back to either, but I suspect (and hope) that President-elect Obama is more historically literate than the author of this article.

Lawnchair

It's also important to point out that Adam Smith was not the proponent of unfettered markets that people like to hold him up as. He was also suspicious of markets left by government to business interests only.

KramericaWallet: On the plus side, at least he didn't endorse Ponzi schemes as the answer to all our economic problems.

On an unrelated note, I wonder what Ponzi would have thought if he knew that decades after his death, people would still refer to one of his scams by his name.

coco ebert: Lawnchair

It's also important to point out that Adam Smith was not the proponent of unfettered markets that people like to hold him up as. He was also suspicious of markets left by government to business interests only.

True as this may be, anyone who uses Adam Smith to support their policy proposals is an absolute turd. The guy may have been a genius, but this was before the industrial revolution, fiat currency, globalization, the modern corporation, mass advertising, etc. In addition to that, he was a pioneer in economics, and didn't have anything resembling a satisfactory mature theory. Whatever he may have been right about has to be seen in the context of the economy of his time, and conclusions about modern circumstances from that must be drawn extremely carefully if at all.

(I wasn't directing that at you, it was more about the article quoting adam smith and idiots in general)

This is all I have to say about this. (new window)

/linked as hot as the fires licking that bastard's face

Rob Anybody: This is all I have to say about this. (new window)

/linked as hot as the fires licking that bastard's face

You might find that funny, but I find this funny:

More recent

But Bush's tax cut fixed everything so why do we need to fix the economy now?

The right says cutting taxes on the rich solves every problem.

Corvus: But Bush's tax cut fixed everything so why do we need to fix the economy now?

The right says cutting taxes on the rich solves every problem.

The answer is as obvious as it is wise:
The government did not abolish the estate tax, privatize social security, and quadruple the military budget. You see, there's more to it than just cutting some taxes.

KramericaWallet: (I wasn't directing that at you, it was more about the article quoting adam smith and idiots in general)

I agree with you totally. But this exchange is much too polite for Fark. We must relinquish the niceties and resume the snark, so- fark you! Just kidding.

The problem seems to be that nobody's seriously defending the article. Maybe there's a freeper convention somewhere and they're away from their computers.

Neeek: KramericaWallet: On the plus side, at least he didn't endorse Ponzi schemes as the answer to all our economic problems.

On an unrelated note, I wonder what Ponzi would have thought if he knew that decades after his death, people would still refer to one of his scams by his name.

I'm more curious what he would think about an entire country collapsing into anarchy due to its banking system being a remake of his famous scheme(see: Albania).

KramericaWallet: The problem seems to be that nobody's seriously defending the article.

I can try to fill in.

"Pfftt...I figured yo O-Bots would be fellating The Chosen One. He a marxist. just like all you college kids on here. "

Fook: Neeek: KramericaWallet: On the plus side, at least he didn't endorse Ponzi schemes as the answer to all our economic problems.

On an unrelated note, I wonder what Ponzi would have thought if he knew that decades after his death, people would still refer to one of his scams by his name.

I'm more curious what he would think about an entire country collapsing into anarchy due to its banking system being a remake of his famous scheme(see: Albania).

My Colombian friend told me that something similar is going on in Colombia. Billions of dollars were bilked in a Ponzi scheme also.

From the article:
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party seem to have fallen in love with the idea of "make work" jobs. In other words, they're going to take money from taxpayers and then use it to "create green jobs," work projects, and other marginally useful government programs.

So, making sure this doesn't happen again:

Is a "marginally useful make work" job according to the far right?

log_jammin: KramericaWallet: The problem seems to be that nobody's seriously defending the article.

I can try to fill in.

"Pfftt...I figured yo O-Bots would be fellating The Chosen One. He a marxist. just like all you college kids on here. "

Not much to defend, I'm no Obamabot, but this was a pretty simplistic article and our Economy is slightly more complex than that.

In other words, just a blogger filling blog space, move along, nothing to see here.

CanisNoir: Not much to defend, I'm no Obamabot, but this was a pretty simplistic article and our Economy is slightly more complex than that.

In other words, just a blogger filling blog space, move along, nothing to see here.

So bHo is above criticism now. typical lib BS.

have fun with the "free" goodies you think you're "entitled" to and what someone "owes" you.

Friedman (the model experiment of Argentina turned out amazing) and Reagan (kicked off the global private credit bubble in 1980 with relaxing financial standards without any commensurate safeguards)

As for Jefferson, you might as well quote the old testament and the Septuagesiquintennial Jubilee (every 25 years all debts, including slavery, are wiped out)

Selling dinars? Yeah, okay.

KramericaWallet: 1. We're talking about borrowing money to increase spending, not raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession is actually a bad idea, but that's not relevant here.
2. During a recession people sit on their money and buy up government bonds, because they know consumer spending is down so there are very grim earning prospects. So, no, very little of the money would be spent creating jobs. As for filling their own needs, the fact is that the stimulus checks went largely to pay off debt, not spending.

But you are taking that money away from people who would have spent it. Moreover, a dollar spent by government is a dollar taxed by government.

KramericaWallet: 1. Tell that to GM and the wonderful super-huge banks which would've gone bust without the bailout. You're confusing perfect competition with oligopoly (the latter dominates the US economy).
2. Bubbles are caused by euphoria (thanks, galbraith), greed, and herd mentality, not government intervention.

These businesses are in business becasue the government refuses to let them fail. If it actually let the inefficient businesses fail, then business would be efficient. Bubbles are caused by many economical factors, inclusing government.

KramericaWallet: Might actually have a point, but do we really prefer for them to go bankrupt?

Absolutely. They are a drain on the economy. If those businesses go under, those workers will be free to work in jobs that are actually profitable. That is the whole premise of the article, that jobs for the sake of jobs are a bad thing.

KramericaWallet: 1. Spending time with one's family also has value, in this case more value for the person than an extra $140. So what's wrong with that?
2. The government uses that money itself, creating transactions.

Taxes destroy jobs. That is a fact which is absolutely undisputed in economics. Even though the government uses that money to make more jobs, those jobs will be less productive than private sector jobs.

KramericaWallet: 1. Obama would only raise taxes on rich people, actually cut it for others. And people with lower incomes are more likely to spend that money, because they actually have important needs that are unmet. The rich people will save it to offset their huge losses in the stockmarket this year, and so not contribute to spending.
2. The problem right now is there is not enough spending going on. There is excess capacity for the demand, so in the short-term there is no need for investment. A sacrifice in long-term growth rate is fine if it gets you out of such a serious recession (if 5% growth is ok, isn't 4% ok? If not, why is 5% ok instead of demanding 6% or 7%? Is there a 'natural' or 'optimal' rate of growth? But -2% is definitely not ok)

Whether government (not just Obama) is increasing taxes is a moot point because it is increasing spending which is effectively taxation on future generations. Moroever, recession is inevitable. So the costs of this intervetion will manifest them selves at the very moment when we are trying to get out.

KramericaWallet: You can cut the debt down when the economy is growing. You cannot do that during a recession (see the great depression as an example of how this made things worse). And you don't pay down the debt by cutting taxes across the board when you already have a deficit...

Sure you can cut debt, or al least minimise it during a depression. All that is needed is the discipline to cut spending.

KramericaWallet: Those are not the reason the US has a trade deficit, and those actions will not reduce the trade deficit in any significant degree. But I agree opening markets is a good idea in general.

Opening markets to forign countries will contribute to a reduction in trade defficit because Americans will be able to buy foreign goods using money obtained from selling goods overseas and not using borrowed money.

Do conservatives really feel like they are in a position to tell other people how to run the economy these days? I mean I'm pretty sure we just had an election on that very question.

UnFark: You want small government? Go to Peru. There are areas of Peru where there's next to no government. Try to accomplish something there. You can't because there is no support.

The wealth of the 70s, 80s and 90s was built by the investment of the 50s and 60s. All the money that was put into schools, roads, airports, electrification, and other infrastructure paid off because it gave smart ambitious people the support they needed to do exciting things.

Shh, don't try to use logic on them!

Simplest Quantum System Conceivable: Do conservatives really feel like they are in a position to tell other people how to run the economy these days? I mean I'm pretty sure we just had an election on that very question.

People who self-identify as conservative always feel that their input is valuable, even on topics that they don't understand in the slightest. In fact, their level of competence on a subject is inversely proportional to their certainty on a position related to that subject.

Wow, does this guy post as Bevets on Fark in his free time? So many quotations!

inglixthemad: UnFark: You want small government? Go to Peru. There are areas of Peru where there's next to no government. Try to accomplish something there. You can't because there is no support.

The wealth of the 70s, 80s and 90s was built by the investment of the 50s and 60s. All the money that was put into schools, roads, airports, electrification, and other infrastructure paid off because it gave smart ambitious people the support they needed to do exciting things.

Shh, don't try to use logic on them!

There is a subtle difference between an effective small government and a lack of effective government.

Also, the wealth of the 70s, 80s and 90s came mostly from productivity increases arising from technological advancement.

Mr Logo: Also, the wealth of the 70s, 80s and 90s came mostly from productivity increases arising from technological advancement.

Don't forget that we were one of the few first world nations whose industrial, transportation, and communication sectors hadn't spent the 40's getting bombed to shiat.