Bruce Bartlett: Keynes was right, I was wrong

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

Krugman linked to this today.

Major advocate of supply-side economics admits that Keynes and Krugman have been practically completely right on the facts.

(Yep, it's another old Conservative Movement Republican complaining that when he tried to talk sense about science, reality, and data, he was shut out by the party. This is a genre now.)

It's gratifying to see one of the most influential advocates of the unsustainable wackiness called supply-side economics finally realize that this sort of policy doesn't really sustain broad economic growth.

It seems to have become a convention of corrupt politicians to strip it down to the following crude formulation: "Cut taxes. Win votes."

From where I sit, it seems supply-side politics is mostly bribery of special interests and flattery of public wishes for something-for-nothing. It's not real economic science.

P.S.: I've seen enough old conservatives in this position that I think there's a historical explanation for it. Movement Conservatism (as opposed to traditional moderate conservatism) is defined by rejecting science, reality, and data that don't fit certain preconceptions or certain ends. What they have done to Bartlett is what they and their fathers did to the liberals when they started this movement, and what they've done all along. It's the basic premise of the conservative schools, conservative media, conservative churches, and so forth--at least it's the basic premise for many in the movement. It's a shame that someone like Bartlett can't use his position to modify their thinking, but rejection of Keynes is a litmus test, apparently.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How exactly did Saddam invading Kuwait to recoup the debt he'd racked up in the longest war of the 20th Century qualify as suckering GHWB, exactly? Whatever can be said about 2003, 1991 was a pretty clear instance of an attempt to show that the fall of the USSR did not mean anything goes was the new geopolitical rule. That was rather a necessity, and in the event Saddam did rather stupidly rack up a debt he was going to have to pay back sooner or later. Unfortunately for him he moved before he had the nukes. All it would have taken was a year.....but then again it is SoDamn Insane we're talking about here.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I do not recall pointing to Hussein as the agent of suckerdom. It has been said that Saddam was suckered by others into thinking that he could take Kuwait without any severe consequences other than an attack by Israel.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

That's what I heard as well. Kuwait was whipstock-drilling across the border, tapping Iraqi fields. Saddam supposedly asked GHWB permission to deal with the situation; when the President didn't shut him down, Saddam took that as tacit permission. He went waaay too far.

A more interesting historical question might be why the Iraqi fields were (and continue to be) so under-developed, first by the Brits, then by everyone else including the US.