Conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying to convince themselves that Mitt Romney is one of them. He's not. The Left knows this. The Right refuses to accept the truth. Gary North is right, "The Tea Party has a big problem."
Keynesianism is the economics of envy, jealousy, and power. Steal. Destroy. Print. Legislate. Free lunch economics. Politicians and bureaucrats as omnipotent central planners. It's no wonder why Keynes theories have become so popular. The problem is, once put into practice, Keynesian theories (always and everywhere) end in disaster.
Romney is a Keynesian disciple.
Here's the latest Leftist praise of Romney's economics. Conservatives should take this praise seriously. The Lefties aren't kidding. They fully understand that the basic assumptions underlying Mitt's economic plans are those of John Maynard Keynes.
The Tea Party does have a big problem. Keynesianism and conservatism are irreconcilable. You can have one, but not the other.
The real news in Mitt Romney's interview with Mark Halperin, as Charles Pierce points out, is that Romney openly repudiated the central argument his party has been making against President Obama for the last three years: that he spent too much money and therefore deepened the economic crisis. Indeed Romney himself had been making this very case as recently as a week ago …
Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?
Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course.
Of course! Romney says this as if it's completely obvious that reducing the deficit in the short term would throw the economy back into recession, even though he and his party have been arguing the opposite case with hysterical fervor. Republicans have committed themselves to Austrian economic notions and other hoary doctrines justifying the position that reducing deficits is a helpful way out of a liquidity trap.
Ah, the infamous "liquidity trap" … aka "we're not spending enough money!"
Romney, Mankiw, Bush, Krugman, Chait, et. al., apparently think consumers come out of nowhere. They just magically appear. No need to produce. But as Gary North points out, "There is no consumption without production."
Consumption must begin with production. There are no free lunches.
When someone buys something from me, he benefits me as a seller. When I buy something from another person, my purchase benefits him. But the central fact is not my purchase. It is rather the production that gave me the money to make the purchase.
Consumption begins with production. There are no free lunches.
A customer is a buyer only because he has already satisfied the demand of another customer, who was also a producer. A customer is a productive person, or the beneficiary of a productive person who has given him money. He is in possession of a valuable economic resource, and this resource is available to him only by means of his prior production. So, the consumer is in fact a prior producer.
It's clear. The Keynesian choice is Mitt Romney. The free market choice is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, conservatives have made it abundantly clear they prefer Romney's Keynesian prescription over reviving the free market principles that built America.
It defies common sense.
Mitt's father, (Rockefeller Republican) George Romney, stormed out of San Francisco's Cow Palace during the 1964 Republican National Convention. He didn't like those uncouth, unruly conservatives who were taking over the convention (and party) in the name of electing Barry Goldwater, the man who famously declared: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Fast forward to today … Massachusetts Liberal and son of their former enemy, Mitt Romney, is now the "respectable" conservative favorite. Go figure. At least the Lefties are happy (and I thought "left and right shouldn't 'get along,'" silly me).
This, of course, is the point that progressives have been making in response to the House Republican budget, which Romney supports … As Esquire's Charles Pierce, who flagged this particular exchange in the interview, wrote, "didn't Romney, in saying that, pretty much blow up the entire rationale for over 30 years of Republican economics right there? Cutting government spending will throw us into a recession or depression?"
I guess David Frum was right all along, "We're all Keynesians during Republican administrations." Left vs. Right doesn't exist anymore. My Statist vs. Your Statist is all that matters. ObamaRomneyCare for one and all!
Too funny …
The statists of New Jersey want to
make jobs more expensive increase the minimum wage to "boost the wages of 500,000 New Jersey workers." Ta da! Everyone will have more money to spend, thus ending the vicious downward spiral of economic decline. Add in the Obama/Romney government spending (and money printing), and you've got a recipe for Keynesian disaster success!
Chris Wysocki brings up a good point about the minimum wage though, "let's make it $100 per hour." Yeah, why not? And if Romney and the Keynesians are right in that cutting $1 trillion "out of the first year of the federal budget … would shrink GDP over 5%," then why not increase federal spending by $1 trillion, therefore increasing GDP by 5%?
The economics of magic!
Heck, why bother working at all when the government can simply print, spend, and legislate high wages? See how easy that is?
This is your guy, conservatives. Obama 2.0.