You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
Noam Blogsky
2004-03-25
Hat tip LGF. Inane rant follows.
Bush’s Economics

Whether Bush believes, or even understands, the economic policies of his administration I have no idea, and it really doesn’t matter much. What’s important are the policies, not whether Bush understands what his handlers instruct him to say.

The current policies are an extreme version of what has been going on since the late Carter years. According to Congressional Budget office economists, real income of the bottom 90% of taxpayers fell by 7% from the mid-1970s through the Clinton boomlet (largely a bubble), while the income of the top .01% rose 600%. And mobility sharply declined as well. Bush’s policies are much more extreme, but one should have no illusions about what preceded. Robert Pollin’s recent Contours of Descent is one of several excellent and quite readable studies carrying the matter through the Clinton years.

Whether the economy can survive with such radical inequality, not to speak of the huge and growing double deficit, no one knows. But it’s surely a success for the planners and the very narrow interests of wealth and power they represent. And planning is not for the longer term, part of the lunacy of semi-market systems.
Posted by:Korora

#12  Oddly, just blogged about this subject. The percentage of children living in poverty is lower than any time since Carter, the percentage of Americans living in poverty is lower, the percentage of families living in poverty is lower. LINK

In fact, all the percentages are lower than the Clinton averages.
Posted by: Chuck   2004-03-25 8:41:07 PM  

#11  Robert Pollin’s recent Contours of Descent is one of several excellent and quite readable studies carrying the matter through the Clinton years.

What's it about, his testicles?
Posted by: tu3031   2004-03-25 8:36:33 PM  

#10  Sheeple are sooo mean.... LOL Grunter.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-03-25 7:23:46 PM  

#9  Comments are disabled already. Didn't last a day.
Posted by: Grunter   2004-03-25 6:26:05 PM  

#8  And the 9.99% between the bottom 90% and top .01%?

Bottom 90% ha!
Posted by: john   2004-03-25 3:00:18 PM  

#7  The troll is really hyper today.
Posted by: B   2004-03-25 1:00:32 PM  

#6  I give the Chomsky posts a 2, and only half-heartedly at that. Same tripe as always and same lack of supporting information as always. If I'm to pay attention he HAS to get some new material.
The comments, on the other hand? I wish I could give a rating higher than 10! Python-esque in diversion! Revolutionary in the coup over the blather of Chimpsky's adherents. But now I have to go see a man about a horse...
Posted by: TiltingWindmill   2004-03-25 12:22:11 PM  

#5  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: Anonymous TROLL   2004-03-25 12:22:00 PM  

#4  By the way, Chomsky's blog has a comments feature. Fred, you only think you've got a troll problem.
Posted by: Matt   2004-03-25 11:01:39 AM  

#3  Chomsky bullshit. Multiply it out.

0.9 X 0.07 = 0.063
0.01 X 6 = 0.06

BFD
Posted by: mojo   2004-03-25 10:54:54 AM  

#2  "not to speak of the huge and growing double deficit"

So Chomsky's in favor of restraining governmental spending -- who would have thought it?

"And planning is not for the longer term, part of the lunacy of semi-market systems."

Would a Five-Year Plan be long-term enough for you? There is data available on how well those work.
Posted by: Matt   2004-03-25 10:41:12 AM  

#1  Who cares what a washed up linguist thinks about the economy? And he smells bad, too.
Posted by: Hyper   2004-03-25 9:05:20 AM  

00:00