Shorter Charles Krauthammer
Posted on February 6th, 2009 by Travis G.
Above: Once pooped someone else’s pants
- By abandoning his campaign promises of hope and change — which were vapid and meaningless, anyway — and also demonstrating that he is not the messiah — which, of course, he never was — we can reasonably declare the presidency of Barack Obama to have failed after just two and a half weeks.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
And you just know that, if McCain were President, we’d all be smoking Cuban cigars as we watched the grass grow and talk about just how damned good the economy was, even after just two and a half weeks!
Well, we’d get arrested for smoking Cuban cigars, but the Beltway, hoo. Man wouldn’t have seen that many cigars outside a maternity ward in China.
Oh no, Leon! I’m surrrrrrrrrrrrrre McCain would have taken care of the pesky ol’ Castro regime on 1/21 with nukes.
Which would cure the tobacco, right there on the vine!
Per Obama:
I’d like to see him say that to Krauthammer. It would be even better if when he said “point!” some spit flew out of his mouth and landed on Krauthammer’s smarmy, stupid face.
Or how about,
Or my personal favorite,
P.S. Is “hypocrisies” a word? I’m thinking no, but I could be wrong.
Fixxied.
It’s somewhat strange… to qualify for Social Security, one can show that they are disabled. Yet when one also qualifies for wingnut welfare, they have to show some i’vegotmineitis as well as some serious mental disabilities. Isn’t that double-dipping?
Economics, Evidence and Enlightenment
By Randall Hoven
With today’s economy, wouldn’t it be nice if we knew how to make an economy grow? To know what works and what doesn’t? Well, we do. We just prefer to ignore the truth.
What works is economic freedom. What doesn’t work is more government.
I’m sorry that those words sound simplistic and like Republican “ideology” (or at least what used to be Republican ideology – before the Bailout Fairy arrived). But they have the benefit of being true. If you were to start from scratch, ignoring all ideology and going simply by the evidence of what produces prosperity, you would come to that conclusion: more freedom and less government lead to greater wealth and prosperity.
It’s not the ideology. It’s the evidence.
Unfortunately, we are ignoring the evidence and rushing headlong in the wrong direction. Alec Baldwin and others threatened to move to France when George W. Bush became President. They didn’t need to. France moved here.
Exhibit A is a thorough study of what works and what doesn’t, conducted over 200 years ago, by Adam Smith. He examined the economies at the time and through history and came to the following conclusion.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
The government need not “manage” the economy, but just stay pretty much out of the way, beyond securing “life, liberty and property.”
Exhibit B is the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. Every year the data support Adam Smith’s conclusion: more economic freedom yields more prosperity, where economic freedom means secure property rights and limited government in terms of size and control of the economy.
“Previous editions of the Index have confirmed the tangible benefits of living in freer societies. Not only are the higher levels of economic freedom associated with higher per capita incomes and higher GDP growth rates, but those higher growth rates seem to create a virtuous cycle, triggering further improvements in economic freedom.”
The average GDP per capita of those considered “Free” was $40,253, about 10 times greater than those considered “Mostly Unfree” ($4,359) or “Repressed” ($3,926). There is strong and undeniable statistical correlation between economic freedom (as scored by the Heritage Foundation) and GDP per capita. And it shows up year after year.
Exhibit C is the case of Presidents Reagan and Mitterrand. Reagan was President of the US from 1981 to 1989 and was considered a very right-wing, free-market zealot. Mitterrand was President of France from 1981 to 1995 and was a socialist, the first socialist president of France. This would be an apples-to-apples comparison of free-market vs. socialist governance. How did that work out?
France was behind the US in 1980 and would fall further behind it in the following years. In 1980, France’s GDP per capita was 84% that of the US. By 1989 it was down to 79% and by 1995 it was 78%. (For the various international comparisons throughout this article, see the US Statistical Abstract.) In 2006, the latest year for which data is available, it was just 74%. All that wonderful socialism in France just set it back further and further from the US.
Exhibit D is Japan. Remember the Japanese miracle? From 1960 to 1991 its GDP per capita grew from 37% of the US’s to 86%. It was closing in on us! By 1991 we were all afraid that the Japanese would outpace us in computer chips, high definition televisions, artificial intelligence, automobiles and overall economic growth. It would buy up all the US assets worth having and we would soon all be working for Japanese bosses.
At that point, 1991, the Japanese government spent just 31.6% of its GDP, lower than that of any European country, Canada or the US. The US was spending 37.8%. The “small government” US had an even smaller government competitor, and it was eating our lunch. Only the US, West Germany and Norway were richer than Japan at that time (GDP per capita).
But then Japan did us a great favor. It decided to grow its government. By 1996 its government was bigger than the US’s as a fraction of GDP, and would remain so through 2005. In 2000 its government was bigger than that of Australia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. It had definitely lost its “smallest government” title.
How did that work out for Japan? Its GDP per capita went from 86% that of the US to just 73% by 1995. It had fallen behind Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom by that same measure.
Exhibit E involves Japan again, but this piece of evidence is very relevant to today — it has to do with economic stimuli. As described by Benjamin Powell at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 2002:
“Between 1992 and 1995, Japan tried six spending programs totaling 65.5 trillion yen and cut income tax rates during 1994. In January 1998, Japan temporarily cut taxes again by 2 trillion yen. Then, in April of that year, the government unveiled a fiscal stimulus package worth more than 16.7 trillion yen, almost half of which was for public works. Again, in November 1998, another fiscal stimulus package worth 23.9 trillion yen was announced. A year later (November 1999), yet another fiscal stimulus package of 18 trillion yen was tried. Finally, in October 2000, Japan announced yet another fiscal stimulus package of 11 trillion yen. Overall during the 1990s, Japan tried 10 fiscal stimulus packages totaling more than 100 trillion yen.”
Sound familiar? Yet from 1991 to 2006 Japan’s economy grew slower than that of any of the other 16 countries listed in the US Statistical Abstract for comparison – even slower than Italy’s. Over those 16 years its GDP per capita grew just 16%. That of its Asian counterpart, South Korea, grew 94% in that same period. The US, Canada and most European countries grew at least twice as fast. And today Japan’s government debt is 182% of its GDP, by far the highest of any developed country .
Economic stimuli work — if what you want to grow is debt rather than real GDP.
Exhibit F is Ireland. In 1987, Ireland’s government was 52% of its GDP, a higher fraction than even that of France at the time (51.9%). But by 1998 it was only 34.5% — lower than that of the US or any other European country. It had cut income taxes across the board. Its top corporate tax rate was the lowest of all OECD countries by 2003.
How did that work for Ireland? From 1990 to 2000, its per capita real GDP grew 86%. By comparison, the US’s grew just 26% in that period. France’s grew just 12%. In 1980, Ireland’s GDP per capita was just 61% of France’s, but by 1998 it had overtaken France and by 2000 it was 118% of France’s.
Exhibit G is Sweden. In 1993, Sweden took the prize for big government. It spent 71% of GDP at a time when even France was spending less than 55%. By 2007 Sweden’s spending was trimmed to 51% of GDP. Still not a small government by any means, but smaller than France’s, at 52%.
Over that time, 1993 to 2006, its real GDP per capita grew 42% compared to France’s 24%. As its government shrank below France’s, it’s GDP per capita swelled above it — from 94% of France’s to 108%. Sweden cut its government burden and saw its economy take off.
Exhibit H is communism. The idea that an economy can be managed from top to bottom has been tried — multiple times. It never worked. Not in Russia. Not in China. Not in Cambodia. Not in Cuba. Not in North Korea. Not in Zimbabwe. Not anywhere. The results were widespread poverty, famine and war. The death count due to communism likely exceeds 100 million.
Exhibit I is US history. The US grew from a British colony to the richest and most powerful country on earth. It was founded on the very principle of freedom. After slavery was ended, the US had about as close to a truly laissez-faire free market as ever existed. During that time it enjoyed about 40 years of 4% real GDP growth per year (quintupling the size of the real economy) and absorbed millions of immigrants looking for freedom and opportunity, all while expanding westward and inventing or employing new technologies from steam engines to electricity, automobiles and airplanes.
In 1913 the US Constitution was changed to allow a federal income tax and the Federal Reserve System was established. Sixteen years later came the Great Depression. President Hoover at the time did almost everything counter to free-market principles: he raised taxes, increased federal spending, restricted free trade and encouraged faulty monetary policy.
President Roosevelt did much more of mostly the same: more federal spending, more regulation, more monetary manipulation. By the end of it, Henry Morgenthau Jr., close friend of FDR, FDR’s Treasury Secretary and architect of the New Deal said this:
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work… We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”
Federal spending went from 3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 10.7% in 1934 — more than a tripling of such spending in only four years — and it would remain at those elevated levels throughout the Depression. Yet the unemployment rate went above 10% in 1930 and would stay above that level until February of 1941; it was as high as 20% as late as 1938.
Exhibits J-Z. We could go on with country after country, era after era. Whether we are talking the extremes of all countries on the planet (e.g., Australia vs. Zimbabwe) or relatively small differences (e.g., Sweden vs. France), or whether we are talking 200 years ago (e.g. Adam Smith), 100 years ago (the US vs. Europe) or the last 20 years, the evidence always leads to the same conclusion: that government is best which governs least.
There might be some point at which government is too small, where anarchy or tribal behavior might destroy such things as secure property rights, life and liberty. But with government in the developed world averaging over 40% of GDP, we are nowhere near such a point. In fact, our problem is the opposite: where the government itself becomes the thief, rather than the protector of property and individual rights.
Learning Lessons. Europe seemed to take such lessons to heart. The examples of Ireland and Sweden, above, are standouts, but not alone. From 1993 to 2007, Sweden cut its government spending by over 19% of GDP. Canada, Finland, Norway and Spain all cut theirs by at least 10%. The Euro area average cut was 6% of GDP.
How much did the US cut in that period? One half of one percent (0.5%). Portugal was the only country of the 28 listed to cut less — 0.3%. And Japan and South Korea were the only ones to grow government in that time period, but still came in under the US in government spending as a fraction of GDP, since they started so low.
Government in the US (federal, state and local) in 2007 spent a larger fraction of GDP than did Australia, Ireland, Japan, Slovakia, South Korea and Switzerland (among 28 listed countries). In the Heritage Foundation’s latest Index, the US ranks only 6th, below Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, and its score is falling. Our score was 80.7, with Canada breathing down our neck at 80.5.
And that was before the trillion-dollar bailout Bacchanalian debacle.
In short, the US is rapidly losing its standing as the free-market, limited-government leader of the world. While Europe was shrinking its government, the US stood pat. The US is becoming just another European country — a high-tax, welfare state with a large public sector and rigid work rules.
Unless President Obama governs counter to all his promises, campaign commercials and supporters’ wishes, he will only accelerate this trend, not reverse it.
We already overtook Australia, Ireland and Switzerland by 2007. We’ll soon overtake Canada, Spain, Luxembourg and the OECD average. Maybe with our trillion dollar bailouts and stimuli, we already did.
All through this time we have been lied to.
* The media called it “laissez-faire capitalism” as the government continued to eat over one third of the economy and regulated us at the equivalent of over 30 New Deals as measured by pages of the Federal Register.
* The media called President Bush a free-market extremist, while he increased federal spending from 18.4% of GDP in 2000 to 20.4% in 2006, added prescription coverage to Medicare, teamed up with Ted Kennedy to expand federal spending on education, subsidized ethanol, etc..
* The media fed the lie that out-of-control imperialism and warfare increased our defense spending to irresponsible and unsustainable levels. Yet defense spending rose from an historically low 3% of GDP in 2000 to a still-low 4% of GDP as we fought wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a level lower than the country experienced for over 50 years, from 1941 to 1994.
The electorate swallowed those lies and elected a man with just 11 years total experience in elective office, only 3 years at the national level, zero military experience and zero executive experience, but the most liberal voting record in the US Senate in 2007.
The conclusion I come to is a sad one: the US is no more.
At least not the US of freedom, free markets and limited government. Just when we should be reinvigorating the US brand of freedom as it had been known for generations, we are accelerating in the exactly opposite direction: salvation through government programs.
Imitating North Korea, Zimbabwe or even France is one way to get “change.” Just not the change I was hoping for.
hypocrisies [hi-pok-ruh-seez] n. fr. Greek
Multiple instances of using a false pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
Syn: Republicans
Must not feed long-winded trolls . . . must not feed long winded trolls . . .
Quick, someone refute point by point Twoofie/RetardState’s chain email, or we loooooooose!!!
In this ominous time, only insights of Charles Krauthammer can lead us to the realization that the catastrophic economic meltdown engulfing the country is of little significance compared to the fact that Obama is a great big poopy-head.
Mommy! Look at what I cut and pasted!
At least Troofie/RetardState has the dignity to make up their crap.
Someone hasn’t grasped the concept of the hyperlink.
Ah, Republican, thy name is Luddite.
Krauthammer:
We who lost the election and who cling to an anachronistic political economic ideology embody the nation.
At least Troofie/RetardState has the dignity to make up their crap.
RedState does, but Troofie just slightly paraphrases stuff from Hannity’s show.
Steven Pearlstein, the Washington Post’s business columnist, is a dirty Keynesian commie spendocrat.
RedState does, but Troofie just slightly paraphrases stuff from Hannity’s show.
Guys, they’re the same person. I really don’t think we’ve had a serious new troll here since the days of Alkon.
It annoys me to no motherfucking end because the same old tired techniques manage to derail thread after thread after thread.
I’d really love to be proven wrong, or something, because this shit has got to stop if we want to keep this place as awesome as it has been.
Kevin was real. Remember what Kevin was like? That’s a real troll. He also lost interest after a while, like trolls do. What we have now is a slight variation on the same thing, which is a fake troll cooked up by someone who visits this place often enough to be within the first dozen or so comments.
We should see if ol’ Kevvie is busy these days, because it seems like people here have forgotten what real troll is like.
Krauthammer really does seem like the kind of guy who burns himself with a lighter if he ever feels anything like pleasure or joy.
The “hope” that Krauthammer seems to have a tough time grasping is that while we are surrounded by catastrophe and chaos, we have the ability to overcome them.
How hard is this, seriously?
What gobsmacks me is: everybody rejects Marxism–correctly; it’s an early economic theory that’s 150 years out of date–but they seem to think the only thing that can replace it is doctrinaire Smithism, which is 75 years further out of date!
Well, we’ve had 28 years of pure Smithism, and here we are. Results speak louder than words. Are we in any better shape than Russia was when the Soviet bubble burst and they had to wake up from that 70-year fever dream? I hope so, but I’m not convinced.
How anybody with two brain cells to rub together could cut-and-paste some diatribe that brings up Adam fucking Smith in this day and age, and think that it says anything relevant about the real world today is absolutely beyond my comprehension. The magical Free Market: yeah, and they laugh at the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Both of these guys had things to say that still make a lot of sense, and Smith was not himself an advocate of a pure free market.
it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory … would give way to the mere mortal….
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
That’s what SHE said.
How anybody with two brain cells to rub together could cut-and-paste some diatribe that brings up Adam fucking Smith in this day and age, and think that it says anything relevant about the real world today is absolutely beyond my comprehension. The magical Free Market: yeah, and they laugh at the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
You actually read the thing? Why?
The economy will never be as unhealthy as Krauthammer looks.
Roll up, roll up for the Mystery Tour!
Krauthammer’s just mad ’cause he didn’t get an invitation . . . to make a reservation.
Exhibit G is Sweden. In 1993, Sweden took the prize for big government. It spent 71% of GDP at a time when even France was spending less than 55%. By 2007 Sweden’s spending was trimmed to 51% of GDP. Still not a small government by any means, but smaller than France’s, at 52%.
Over that time, 1993 to 2006, its real GDP per capita grew 42% compared to France’s 24%. As its government shrank below France’s, it’s GDP per capita swelled above it — from 94% of France’s to 108%. Sweden cut its government burden and saw its economy take off.
LESSON FOR AMERICA
Spend just over half your GDP on your people, and your economy will boom!
Thank you for supporting the liberal position.
Nobody who supported Obama called him a messiah. He was called a great speaker, a political phenomenon, a fresh face, and a great relief by his supporters but only his enemies ever called him a messiah.
So, Chuckie, not only is your argument dishonest, it’s unworkable.
What, exactly, is Krauthy-kins bitching about? Or does he even have a point?
What, exactly, is Krauthy-kins bitching about? Or does he even have a point?
I believe if you pull his beanie off…
When ever I see Krauthammer I think of that scene from Dr. Stranglove
“Mein Führer…! I can walk!!”
Cracks me up every time.
I’d really love to be proven wrong, or something, because this shit has got to stop if we want to keep this place as awesome as it has been.
No kidding, especially since as much as I joke about this or that troll being replacable by a short Perl script, Anonymous/copypasta troll probably IS a short Perl script.
It is the height of irony that this preacher of Darwinian economics is a horrid little troll who should have died at birth.
Exhibit B is the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom….
Suitable only when submitted as evidence of diminished capacity in a competency hearing.
Righteous Bubba:
OKay. It’s a truism that Marx wasn’t a Marxist. I’m willing to agree that Smith wasn’t a Smithist. Unfortunately, Reagan et. al. have been.
Commie Atheist:
Oh, doG, no!
Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic
FreedomFascism….Adjusted that for you. Should fit fine now.
You think we could get a swimming pool to rise from the ground & finish the job one of its relatives started on SauerKrauthammer?
I CK is re-affirming his membership of the frothing at the mouth club. He had a few shafts of sanity that penetrated the Farcefeild just before the election. He must have got some hard looks from Jonah et al down at the Vaseline and Sock Puppets shop.
Unfortunately, Reagan et. al. have been.
Don’t think a snake oil peddler will drink the stuff himself. All the “free market” horseshit is for the useful idiots. For Reagan, may he roast in Hell, and his buddies it’s strictly a buddiocracy. I mean damn, starting a war for the hell of it to enrich your pals with NO-BID contracts (free market, my ass).
Don’t confuse the sizzle with the steak.
Little Pig:
Oh, absolutely. The definition of being a ______-ist is using _____ as a front for your real motivations. Cf. religion.
Both of these guys had things to say that still make a lot of sense, and Smith was not himself an advocate of a pure free market.
OKay. It’s a truism that Marx wasn’t a Marxist. I’m willing to agree that Smith wasn’t a Smithist. Unfortunately, Reagan et. al. have been.
See, that’s the problem. As Bubba said, both Marx and Smith had important things to say, things that are still valid and useful to consider when one tackles one’s economy. However, neither should be taken as gospel, which has happened, and that’s why things go cock-eyed. The world is not static.
But enough people seem to enjoy being told what to think that we manage to keep doing the same stupid friggin’ thing over and over.
“Don’t think a snake oil peddler will drink the stuff himself. All the “free market” horseshit is for the useful idiots. For Reagan, may he roast in Hell, and his buddies it’s strictly a buddiocracy. I mean damn, starting a war for the hell of it to enrich your pals with NO-BID contracts (free market, my ass).”
Reagan was a puppet and a servant to the Rich, no doubt about that, and one shouldn’t think of his advanced age,senility and gradal descent into Alzheimer’s as any kind of an “excuse”.
My favorite quote about the old bastard comes from Gore Vidal, and it was along these lines:
“To the extent that he understands what’s going on around him/being done in his name, he probably agrees with it.”
See, that’s it in a nutshell. Marx and Smith both had useful things to say, but they were early on in the game. Nobody (sane) thinks it begins and ends with either one.
But Marxism and Smithism are religions. Any departure from the dumbed-down digests that people are forced o recite becomes evidence of heresy. The Free Market Fundamentalists are just like creationists: If Darwin got something wrong or didn’t answer every possible question in THe Origin of Species 150 fucking years ago, well that disproves “Darwinism.” Because every religion has to be spelled out in one book and nothing can be added or taken away forever and ever, world without end, amen!
That’s why a Smithist won’t let anybody challenge the laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog, let-them-eat-cake, robber-baron capitalism that they imagine Smith advocated. That would require admitting that things have changed since 230 years ago, and nothing’s changed since 6,000 years ago, when people were riding dinosaurs to work, so there!
Adam Smith’s Invisible Handjob?
That’s why a Smithist won’t let anybody challenge the laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog, let-them-eat-cake, robber-baron capitalism that they imagine Smith advocated. That would require admitting that things have changed since 230 years ago, and nothing’s changed since 6,000 years ago, when people were riding dinosaurs to work, so there!
It would also require them actually reading Adam Smith’s work.
Nice shout out to Chuck D.
Didn’t they already try the same “I’m rubber, you’re glue” bullshit last year with Teh Sarah & Johnny Show?
Of course, now they’ve got Joe The Plumber for a fuckin’ economic advisor, displaying their deep field of talent – so look out, Obama! They’ve got you right where they want you now!
Shorter right-wing: our cause is just & must prevail … if we can just foil Obama’s evil plan to save the economy long enough to rev up The Depression 2: Eclectic Kookookajoo, we’ll prove once & for all that Democrats are failures! We have to destroy America in order to save it from itself – & disagreeing means you hate God!
Uh . . . lessee . . . uh . . . highlight text . . . okay . . . got it . . . now Ctrl-C to copy text . . . okay . . . got it . . . and . . . uh . . . lessee . . . Ctrl-V to paste text . . . uh . . . yeah . . . hey, I did it! Yay me!
>>>How did that work for Ireland? From 1990 to 2000, its per capita real GDP grew 86%. By comparison, the US’s grew just 26% in that period. France’s grew just 12%. In 1980, Ireland’s GDP per capita was just 61% of France’s, but by 1998 it had overtaken France and by 2000 it was 118% of France’s.
You are being lied to: I’m typing this in a public, publicly funded library in the west of Ireland, and I can tell you that this history of Irish economic growth is a lie.
Firstly, the Irish economy was strongly stimulated by state spending on education and infrastructure (and by the injection of large amounts of European Union structural funds).
Secondly, it is highly likely that the per capita income figure is inflated by the ruse multinational companies in Ireland use to dodge tax in other countries by shifting their incomes to Ireland, which allows them to exploit Ireland’s lower corporate taxes; this has the effect of raising the per capita income figure.
Thirdly, after a relatively brief period of genuine growth, the Irish boom was replaced by a bubble centred around unsustainable property speculation, and corrupt banking practices. The sky is now black with chickens coming home to roost. The talk is of an at least 10% drop in living standards, and severe austerity for ordinary people (a cost not shared by the economic and political elites, naturally).
Your are being lied to by this person, people. For more information on the current Irish situation, see the commentary at the Cedar Lounge Revolution blog.
http://www.cedarlounge.wordpress.com
If I’m not mistaken – and again, I am not a licensed economist, and I haven’t read the relevant text, this is by hearsay – Smith specifically denounced corporations as playing holy hell with & ruinin the free market. So the present-day Smithians are really anti-Smith.