Leftism

Quote of the Day

by

Chet Richards, in a comment on this thread at Belmont Club:

For an economics professor, Gregory Clark has a very poor grasp of U.S. economic history. The real question is: what have we lost through our current redistributionist (i.e. socialist) policies?
 
LBJ instituted the “Great Society” as a redistributionist scheme. I well remember that at the time critics were saying that LBJ’s program was grossly underfunded and that it would have a very negative impact on the US economy. LBJ not only publicly admitted that the critics were right, he even openly gloated that future generations would just have to live with the consequences. On top of LBJ’s ego we had to suffer from the adoption of the “Limits to Growth” policy that was enacted in the early 70’s by liberal neoluddites including Nelson Rockefeller’s gang (and Richard Nixon). This policy choked off growth during the 1970’s by doubling the Capital Gains Tax.
 
So what have we lost? The long term economic growth of the US from its founding to 1970 was 4.5% through thick and thin. Growth losses during recessions and depressions were compensated by growth overshoots during the recovery period. Since the population was also growing, the per capita growth rate works out to about 3.5%. In 1970 the long term per capita growth rate dropped to 1.5% and has remained at that level ever since. (These days an annual total GDP growth of 4% is regarded as phenomenally good!)
 
Working the numbers for the period from 1969 to 2009 we have a per capita GDP growth of 4x with a 3.5% per capita growth rate. With the true per capita growth rate of 1.5% the per capita growth during this period was actually 1.8x. If we had not had LBJ and “Limits to Growth” our per capita economy would now be about 2.2x larger than it currently is. Factoring in the population growth gives us about the same ratio.
 
Conclusions: 1) Almost all of us have suffered a profound loss of the prosperity that should have been ours. 2) Revenues to the Government would have been substantially larger than they currently are and taxes would have been much lower. 3) Inflation would have been much lower which means our savings would not have been eaten away (and taxed) by inflation. 4) Current policies to expand redistribution are going to create even more loss of wealth and increase in poverty.
 
Shed a tear, folks, for what might have been, and what we likely will still lose.

Historians in denial

by

Tomorrow I shall go to London Library and collect my reserved copy of “The Forsaken” by Tim Tzouliadis, the tragic story of American workers who went to the “new paradise”, that is the Soviet Union in the early thirties and what happened to them. (Hint: it is not very pleasant.) After that, I shall have to read “Spies”, the latest in the revelations about the far-reaching Communist network in the United States of the thirties and forties. I have already read with great glee the revelations about I. F. Stone.

It would be awfully nice if at some point we could have a few revelations of that kind here and not have to rely on the Americans to give us the information. But what with our libel laws and paranoid secrecy, which makes it impossible to get hold of important documents, I cannot see that happening any time soon.

Meanwhile, I have re-read “In Denial” by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr about historians trying to wish away documents and evidence about Communism and its agents. Not only re-read but wrote about it on the Conservative History Journal blog. I’ll be glad to hear American reactions.

What Defines a Man?

by

While reading this articlee [h/t Instapundit] a thought gelled that had been forming in my mind throughout the Gates affair.

It appears that for leftists in America today, Obama is still more defined by being black than he is by being the President of the United States. They seem to assume that we all should see him as a black man before we see him in any other role.  What more can a person possibly accomplish before others see him as just an individual defined by his accomplishments?  He has attained the highest office in the most powerful country the world has ever seen, yet they still see his skin color first and foremost.

Sadly, Obama seems to see himself that way too.

We still have a lot of work to do.

Our Continuing Sad Problem With Hate Crimes

by

Via Instapundit comes a story of a hate crime against a black family in Austin, Tx:

The brick, thrown through a 4-year-old boy’s bedroom window, read “Keep Westside White. Keep Westside Strong.”
 
The homeowner, Barbara Frische, who is black, said she has lived in the home for 10 years.
 
“It’s the first time anything like this has ever happened to me,” she said.
 
Police have not classified this incident as a hate crime, said Austin Police Sgt. Richard Stresing, because hate crimes target an individual specifically because of an identifying characteristic, like race. Police say the incident has been classified as criminal mischief and deadly conduct.

Honestly, every time I think we’ve made progress in Texas on race relations, something like this comes along to prove me wrong. How can the police not see this as a hate crime? You have a message advocating racial segregation tossed through the window of a black family who had the temerity to move into a historically all-white area of the city.

This is why African Americans have such a hard time believing that hate-crime laws will be fairly enforced and aren’t just some kind of legal fiction intended to single them out for punishment and to stigmatize them as a group. This is especially true when you consider that many people in the law and academia hold to the belief that racism and therefore hate crimes are attributes solely of African American culture. When you have such an intellectual framework, how can African Americans trust that hate-crime laws will be enforced fairly?

Clearly, America still has a lot of work to do.

[Update: It’s pointed out to me that I may have made a typo or two when I copied the quote from the original article. I’ll fix it later but in the meantime make sure to read the original before commenting.]

A Parable of Health Care “Reform”

by

Writing on the health care policy debate, Megan McArdle observes  [h/t Instapundit]:

Still, I think you have to establish a sort of minimal cutoff below which it’s better to wait for a better opportunity than  do something NOW!!!

By coincidence, this morning some anonymous coward using a remailer sent me the following rant:

Your latest post is vacuous and says nothing. In fact you misconstrue, as do so many, what the health plan on the table in Congress is all about. In fairness, at least be objective in what it says…Innuendo is but an Italian suppository, and the nay saying continues, endlessly. Say something positive for  a change. Offer a program, an idea, a proposal rather than simply sniping like a kid in an elementary school playground. [emp added]

Leftists very commonly assert that that non-leftists have to offer a fully fleshed-out alternative to the status quo before they can offer criticisms of the current faddish idea of the Left.  When you try to explain to them that the validity of an idea has nothing to do with the validity of any competing ideas, they stare at you blankly. Therefore, to try and explain matters to leftists, I offer the following parable.

Three friends, Bob, Lefty and Righty are standing on the edge of a dam’s overflow channel watching the swirling, churning water flowing out of the dam in the concrete channel 30ft below.

Read more