Adam Smith's invisible hand metaphor and the related concept of economic efficiency have dominated policy debates. We discuss why and how ethical and moral issues must also come into play.
Some think tank economists, who have felt it time to end the deregulation experiment, which seems to have recreated the pre antitrust, Robber Barren era, have an interesting take on the Biden stop inflation bill. Clearly the name has little to do with what it does. I found their analysis interesting.
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek before him argued against government regulation and favored eliminating regulation, lowering taxes on the wealthy, and the result would be a “let e’r rip” fast growing economy that would lift all boats. Mind you the economy had done quite nicely after WWII, providing 5% of our 1958 GDP to Europe in the Marshall Plan. Lots of people look back fondly at the GDP growth rates from 1945 to the 1970s.
The “stagflation” in the 1979’s lead to a great experiment, lowering tax rates that were supposed to fund themselves with greater growth, and placing the stock holder as the one and only stake holder. With the stockholder wanting cash cows, GE, Thomas Edison’s amazing invention machine, was milked to death, and is being liquidated.
Greenspan and Friedman promised no more boom and bust, better distribution of wealth, higher GDP growth rates. Greenspan, a few rears before the 2008 financial bust, declared the economy “recession proof.”
What we got was lower GDP growth rates, regional disparity like rural America and the rust belt, hollowed out companies and communities, innovation and jobs departing over seas.
We have been digging deeper in this hole for 40 years. Time to throw away the shovel.
This podcast starts with a take down of our 40 year experiment, and unpacks Biden’s Inflation protection bill, for what it really is a rejuvenation of key industries.
Questions: Finland's Nokia exec speeding fine - is that an example of fair outcome? Fine based on level of income/wealth?
Comments: Fair process seems blind to actor's wealth. Fair outcome seems to require factoring in wealth.