Can’t judge presidents in a vacuum.
John Griswold
2

If you go back and read my first point in the piece, I concede that presidents are not completely, or even mostly, on the hook for the state of the economy. I just said that if we don’t couple Obama with his economy, we have to be consistent and do the same with other presidents. If we associate presidents with the economies they preside over, Obama is uniquely stagnant.

Also, I forgot to mention in my last response, that, as I said in my second point in my piece, Obama’s “recovery” included added $8 trillion to the national debt. So future generations are, for lack of a better word, enslaved by our financial decisions before they are even born.

As far as regulations go, no one reads enough to keep up with everything. Obama added more pages of regulation in 2016 than any president ever in any year. He has the top 4 years when it comes to total pages of regulation, and 8 of the top 11. Some of the notable ones are Obamacare (which has certainly gotten “coverage” for more people, but it has hurt others in the process and not improved health outcomes a smidge… nothing could be easier than helping some people by hurting others), a massive host of environmental regulations (regardless of whether you think they are necessary, they undermine economic growth), Dodd-Frank (which wound up being a small bank Holocaust, and a big bank safety net), and loads of energy, FDA, financial, and education regulations. Like I said, no one can really put this into perspective because the amount of legislation is just too overwhelming to keep up with. We should all be very afraid that there are mountains of laws we can never know or understand that regulate our lives and freedoms.

Capital is only partially about demand. Supply and innovation are the real sparks. That’s what investment is. There was no demand for smart phones until smart phones existed. They had to be invented and created before there was a demand for them. No one knew they wanted a ShamWow until they saw the commercial. That’s why risk taking is so important, and simply satisfying demand has been so disastrous in Socialist countries. It was production, not demand, that drove all of that growth. Look a TV! Look a house in the suburbs! Look air conditioning! Demand plays an important role, but it’s all about supply and innovation. You create demand by creating supply. In economics, this is called Say’s Law.

What should happen during a recession is total laissez fiare treatment from the government. One thing that has to be accepted is that recessions do occur. They mostly occur because of the innovation that eventually solves other problems. If you read The Grapes of Wrath, which is obviously geared towards a “red” persuasion, you can see that the farmers were displaced by machines. This is happening today too. But at the same time, there are LOADS of available jobs in STEM fields, service industry (like plumbing, welding, and electrical engineering), healthcare, trucking, and more. If we pacify displaced people with welfare, they won’t learn that they have to change their habits (or at least guide their children in the right direction). They’ll be more likely to become complacent, and grow dependent upon government. Many of the jobs available today (not the STEM or healthcare ones) take very little time to get trained for. But people should be sort of desperate because that’s reality, and reality makes you do the smart thing more often than not. So, had we let everything alone during the depression, we would have had a few rough years as everyone adapted to the new economy, and then we would have boomed on our own. We pretty much had to go into WWII regardless, and I don’t blame FDR for that. But the social spending put the “Great” in Great Depression. Trump’s administration and this GOP congress are going to roll back regulations, and I pray welfare spending, and we’ll finally have the boom we’ve been dying for. An education overhaul will be great too. There’s no reason to have kids in conventional classrooms for so long anymore. They should be out creating, exploring, and practicing real skills.

You are incorrect about why people have kids. Poor people have more kids than rich people. Rich people generally have a few kids who they invest in heavily. You know many Jewish or East Asian families with more than 2 or 3 kids? Poor people have kids, theoretically, because each one has a worse chance at succeeding. So the more kids you have, the more likely you are to have a successful one. That’s why we see some of the largest families in the Black, Hispanic, and “redneck” communities. Why do you think the Chinese favored boys throughout the one-child policy period? It’s because boys, at least during that time, were far more capable of making money. Girls were more of a liability.

On your last paragraph, “share of wealth” means absolutely nothing. A poor person in America today is, in many ways, better than the billionaire robber barons of the early 20th Century. Rockefeller didn’t have antibiotics, reliable transportation, vaccines, air conditioning, modern refrigeration, modern plumbing, and of course no internet, television, radio, or other commodities we take for granted today. And growth has not been flat over that entire period. There was great growth during the Reagan and Clinton years. Reagan thanks to low taxes, deregulation, and free trade, and Clinton thanks to the dotcom boom. Obama’s economy is the stagnant one, not all of history’s.

You are also incorrect about government spending. Currently, local, state, and federal governments spend roughly 40% of our GDP. The only other time spending was greater was during WWII. What’s more is that government spending used to be almost entirely local. Now, more than half of government spending is at the federal level, and that states spend way more than local governments to boot. And that spending is not even close to mostly on military. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security account for nearly 65% of total federal spending.

And free trade is the closest thing to Christ this world will ever know. Do you know how many people have risen from the dirt around the world thanks to free trade? Free trade creates so much wealth, so many jobs, and so many opportunities. Mankind’s greatest accomplishment is free trade. Trump, I think, understands this, but he wants some of our partners (namely Jiy-na) to stop ripping us off by selling our products at a higher than agreed upon rate and stealing our intellectual property. Free trade needs a code of ethics, or else it doesn’t live up to expectations. However, it’s better to have imperfect free trade than protectionism, which kills. Can you imagine if a town decided it would only sell and consume its products and services within its borders? That would be suicide.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.