Annoying platitude of the day, part II
Yes, it’s becoming a series.
The latest installment of Annoying Platitude Of The Day surfaced in the Democrat debate and has also been plied mindlessly by Republican candidates. John McCain is a repeat offender.
The Annoying Platitude Of The Day is this phrase: “Managing the economy.” Liberal reporters keep asking: Which candidate is best equipped to “manage the economy?” What will you do to “manage the economy?” And candidates in both parties keep answering without challenging the premise of the question.
Presidents do not “manage the economy.” No single individual is endowed with enough wisdom and power to “manage the economy.”
How pathetic is it that we don’t have a single candidate running for president who can clearly articulate the strength of free enterprise and the awesome power of the invisible hand?
John Stossel elaborates:
The presidential candidates have been repeatedly asked how they would “manage the economy.” With the exception of Ron Paul, every candidate has accepted the premise that this is something the president of the United States should do.
Or can do.
Democrats act like the president is national economic manager. Republicans pay lip service to free markets, tax and spending cuts, and less regulation — before proposing big programs to achieve “energy independence,” job training and a cooler climate…
…Sen. Hillary Clinton told The New York Times recently, “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. You try to find common ground, insofar as possible. But if you really believe you have to manage the economy, you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it.”
Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. “Power” in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people.
Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.
The economy is far too complex for any president — no matter how smart — to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources?
They can’t. That’s why free people are more prosperous than unfree people.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Managing The Economy | Fear and Facts
- House of Eratosthenes
- Michelle Malkin » Video: Politicians don’t “create jobs”
- Michelle Malkin » Annoying platitude of the day
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: 2008 campaign, John McCain, Subprime crisis
Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas Special
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristPundit & Pundette
» How much did that "tent" cost?
And that’s why Hillbilly or Obama would be the most dangerous people to have in office. They want government to take over health care, put controls on the housing industry (by freezing interest rates), taxing the higher income folks for “fairness”, etc..etc..basically tying the hands of individuals and businesses.
Dangerous people. THOSE kinds of government control will bring down the economy for sure.
I will let everybody here know which soup kitchen they assign me to. If you mention this blog I will scoop your laddleful from the bottom.
The market will determine……not government
“Manage the economy” is what Communists and socialists have tried to do, and not with much success.
Can’t wait for Barack’s first 5 year plan.
madchef,ROFL
Haha. “Invisible hand.” Thank you, economics class from a year ago; I recognize the Adam Smith–ism!
You know, it’d be nice if the web filter we had here at the seminary didn’t block half the images on your site.
THANK YOU!!!
After watching, albeit briefly, I screamed at the TV…”The President’s job is NOT to manage the economy”.
And here I find you covering this topic so beautifully, so Thank You!!
When will somebody stand up and fight this premise? Unfortunately, the only person that I can imagine saying that is Fred, and well, he ain’t at the dance anymore
Now, IF I were in the presidential debate, AFTER listening to my democratic opponent, I would state:
“We just found out that Fidel Castro is resigning, THAT is the kind of leader that controls the economy. Since when have you been given the authority to manage the economy?”
By the way, the really sad part of the whole process is that the press have no idea of how this country was founded because they wouldn’t be THAT stupid to ask such a ridiculous statement
Now, they can manage the economy in one sense – they can manage to screw it up.
I wish these politicians could “manage” to keep their damn hands out of my pockets!
If we “manage” to dodge the national health care bullet, we get hit with a bi-partisan 50cent per gallon gasoline tax, straight out of the Goracle. What happened to all the outrage over pump prices? Now we have to pony up another half-dollar to save the freakin planet!
All these pundits wonder what’s all the fuss with McCain from the right.
If you want to save the planet, SHRINK THE DAMN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S APPETITE FOR OUR MONEY!
Would Reagan have supported a fuel tax to fund an “alternative energy” scam like McCain-Lieberman?
If alternatives to oil are so great, LET THE PRIVATE SECTOR TAKE THE DAMN RISK AND THE DAMN PROFITS IF IT WORKS! There is no fiduciary responsibility when the government is subsidizing an industry, what the politicians call “investing”. It’s STEALING FROM US!!
Time for a Michelle compliment! How do you do this? You know something about everything, and keep us all up to date about it.
You are amazing!
There are many economic management models. Or how does the government feed the beast: from Wikipedia that explains two of such animals and they do not include Communism.
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. This can be contrasted with the classic Keynesian economics (or “demand side economics”), which argues that growth can be most effectively managed by controlling total demand for goods and services, typically by adjusting the level of government spending. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics, a derogatory term given to right-leaning economists’ views by political opponents. The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and popularized the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer.
“managing the economy” is almost as bad as the frequent false dichotomy of Bush, McCain, Kennedy, and most debate moderators:
“We can’t deport 12 million undocumented workers, THEREFORE (sic) we must make them citizens.”
Thank you, Michelle. I’m glad to see you understand Presidental power. The MSM thinks we’re electing some sort of dictator or emperor this year, endowned with powers unlimited in scope. The President does not “manage the economy.” It goes to show the intelligence of the liberal reporters. Of course, the way to “manage” the economy is to do nothing at all. Free enterprise runs great without a lot of “well meaning” economic “experts” running the show. It’s like having your friends come over to look at your computer. Everyone has a different solution to fine tuning it. Next thing you know, your computer crashes with the “blue screen of death”. And all your friends scatter, blaming everyone else and you. The President does not issue “order and edicts”. Congress is the one who has to approve anything. But, of course, under the “blame game” and their rules, if I suggested that Michelle rob a bank and she did, I would go to jail, and Michelle would get to keep the money and walk away untouched. The President always gets the blame. It’s easier to blame one person than a whole Congress. I wish these reporters would study up on their Civics. The President doesn’t “fix or manage” economies.
Can we add another phrase to the list?- “running the country” as in “President Clinton is too busy ‘running the country’ to waste time responding to these allegations”.
If Presidents of both parties would limit themselves to running the government rather than attempting to run the whole country, we would all be better off.
FTA:
“I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market”
More crap that they’re allowed to spout without question.
First, no reporter is going to ask the obvious question: What does Hillary consider to be an “appropriate balance of power?” and what does “appropriate balance of power” even mean?
But what bugs me most is when politicans are allowed to use the line “to get back to,” which is meant to imply that there was some perfect moment in America’s past when (whatever topic they happen to be discussing) was in perfect harmony. But no one ever asks them when that moment was. If asked, could she name the era in America’s history when the governmental/economic stars aligned properly? We don’t know, because no one will ever ask her.
Right now the federal government has more control over the economy then any time in America’s past, with the possible exception of WW II. Is Hillary saying that she wants “to get back to” a time where the government had less control? Somehow I doubt that.
The line “to get back to” is always an attempt to convince voters into believing that America once did something (in this case the economy) perfectly until someone (in this case, Bush) came along and screwed it all up. Here it’s an attempt to convince voters that there was a time in the past where the government was able to “tweak” or “fine tune” the economy juuuuuuust enough so that it was just perfect, no cycles, no “downturns,” just government-controlled utopia. It harkens back to a non-existant time when America thrived under Hillary’s socialist ideas.
I am positive that there would be endless volunteers to haul off the illegals, don’t you?
So much for THAT excuse the pundits keep spewing.
As far as the economy? Put your money somewhere safe, hide it, keep it out of banks, and shoot anyone who attempts to take it.
Michelle: You and John Stossel and most of the commenters here are TECHNICALLY right, the President should not and really “can not” manage the economy.
But you sort of miss the point of the question. Fact is, MOST Americans do accept the premise of the question because it hits the basic, core POCKETBOOK question that we have all been taught determines elections: HOW WELL OFF ARE YOU AND HOW WELL OFF WILL YOU FEEL WITH CANDIDATE X?
Billy Clinton defeated a sitting president with “Its the Economy Stupid” in 92. And GHW Bush went from a 90% approval rating to defeat because a little thing called a “Recession” popped up prior to the election.
The question is meant to have the candidate state what his or her solution is to create more jobs; keep the economy growing; and prevent a recession.
For the GOP the answer should be: I will manage the economy by lowering taxes, reducing regulation and stimulating private sector growth.
For the Dems the answer always is: I will raise taxes on the rich to fund more government programs, I will regulate and prevent huge corporate profits and I will expand government programs and entitlements to stimulate growth.
Capitalism vs socialism. Thats what the people expect in answer to this question.
I have to differ with Michelle in that to many people the “Name One” thing doesn’t matter. The “Santa Claus” factor does, and my greatest worry now is just how many _Republican_ women and elders can be woo’ed over to The Bama by the notion of “free” health and child care and massive rent supplement and food stamp entitlements. I know from my community just how seductive such programs are, and I think many pundits underestimate this possibility.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
“Manage the economy”?
When have they even managed the budget?
The only “managed economy” is a command economy…
market economies manage themselves.
Our poor bastardized economy shows the effects of people like McCain and Hillary “fiddling and diddling”, and trying to take it more and more in the “command economy” direction.
You’re so right, “manage the economy” by the government has annoyed me for some time!
But it goes along with the absurdly leftist agenda that is so widespread in the mainstream media and politics, along with “reproductive rights/’choice’,” “gay rights,” “undocumented immigration,” “independent/undecided voters,” “Cuban ‘President’ Castro,” and climate change. When they state it this way, the listener is left to assume that any other position is wrong.
Less government, less government and less government. Congress, just pass a budget and then go back to your real job (no, not fundraising).
Government is incapable of managing anything !!
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful change to have some candidates running, at least on one side of the race, that understands how a free market economoy works and not be afraid to articulate it to people, especially idiotic debate moderators, when the viewing audience has a chance to be educated at the same time?
I wish the invisible hand would slap the stupid out of all of them.
I don’t see why Democrats can’t manage the economy. After all, they have God-like wisdom and know what is best for us, how to give everybody free health care, how to make us all get along like a loving family and love our fellow man and even how to control the weather. Managing a mere economy based on hundreds of millions of individual decisions every day is childs play.
Barry F said: especially idiotic debate moderators, when the viewing audience has a chance to be educated at the same time
It’s like being at work. Your quartertly numbers are up and everyone is working as a team going in the same direction. The boss walks in and announces he has hired a manager to come in and manage what is already working well because, it should be managed better. Everyone looks at each other and realizes it’s time to go somewhere else asap.
When it comes to our free market economy, they need to stick with the old adage – “If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.”
I believe that is what you are talking about too, Marshall.
Did anyone catch the phrase Hillary is accused of plagiarizing from John Edwards that she is said to have used in the debate last night, after talking of Obama “Xeroxing” his speeches?
I kept hearing about it on Fox & Friends this morning, while getting ready for work.
Market power is an expression of the freedom people have to make and buy the goods and services they think they need. Government power limits that liberty, often to suit the wacky whims of economically illiterate and power mad leaders. Like Hugo Chavez and his economic management of Venezuela that has cleared the shelves of grocery stores of food. Or Hillary’s attempt to nationalize one seventh of the economy because she believe she could run our health care better than us. Or Mugabe’s wrecking ball socialism which has destroyed Zimbabwe. Or the Khymer Rouge’s plan to keep killing people until socialism worked.
Whenever government seeks to manage the economy in its big, dumb, bumbling gummint way, it always boils down to sending men with guns to stop the people from doing what’s in their best interest.
LOL. Reminds me of job experience I had working in an engineering lab a few years ago. We knocked out large quantities of good work for anybody in the company that came to us with a problem without complaints. Somebody decided we needed to be managed better and assigned a clueless manager to oversee our work (and reduce our independence). Quantity, quality and moral quickly declined. I ended up leaving because it became impossible to get anything done.
At least then I had other places to go. With the economy there really isn’t another one I can go to without leaving the country.
Ah. Here is what Edwards said a while back in a Democrat debate and what Hillary said last night. Obama was sitting there shaking his head in agreement with Hillary, as she rattled it off.
Madonna Constantine may have some competition from fellow plagiarists.
jsr#32,
My exact experience more than once unfortunately.
On a national level business will leave along with investment capital. Most healthy companies are looking ahead five and ten years and if it looks inevitable that the W.H. will be inhabited by Obama/Billary it will begin.
Unfortunately, despite the facts, all of the candidates we have apparently do not believe in the Constitution but do wholeheartedly agree that the government has a right to control anything and everything.
What I would give for some real history lessons without all of the PC Revisionist garbage.
Can you say “Federalist” boys and girls?
The politicians cannot!
Sad …
I have a local example of how dismal a picture, this “government managing an economy” is.
I am involved in a program that benefited from a low-income deferred community redevelopment loan from the State of California. If we didn’t meet certain milestones, we had to start paying it back with interest after two years. Well within that time, we met the milestone and have been trying to pay the money back…over a MILLION DOLLARS…, but the State of California does not know how to receive the money. The only experience they’ve had is with defaulting and collecting payments. They have no mechnism in place to receive the large sum “fruit” of a successful community redevelopment venture. Failure, they can handle. Success, not so much.
How pathetic is THAT? We may have to sue the State to TAKE our money, so we can move ahead with the rest of the redevelopment project.
Crazy. Yeah….trust the gov’mt. NOT.
They are simply leaving words out. What they meant to ask was: How will you manage (to screw up) the Economy?
They could even delete one of those additional words (don’t want to be overly verbose for their candidates or electorate), Ron, by saying: “How will you manage to socialize the economy?”
Sad truth is, if a candidate tells the truth – that the President’s job is to preside over the government, not to “manage” the economy or “run the country”, they’d drop about 10 million votes on the spot. Let’s face it, the schools have been geared to produce good little socialists for most of the last century. Conservatives are just the escapees and throwbacks.
Most politicians start their term right away, with not telling the truth. “Swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.” I wonder how many actually know what it is, how it was put together, and what’s in it. If any of the three candidates win and go through the inauguration honestly, they would have to do a complete political 180.
I’m a conservative refugee from a socialist system?
Okay. That tears it. I must be entitled to some government handouts for a status like that!
All this confusion is possible only because the liberals have long since won control of our educational system and its philosophies.
Hardly anyone (except the home-schooled, of course) studies our Constitution in their schooling prior to college, and even then if they take a college-level course they’re more likely to get only liberal spin.
And there is even less taught about basic economics and ‘command’ economies versus the free market (most people would not understand this question and answer: Q. What’s another name for the ‘black market’? A. The free market).
Most college students can’t even name our three branches of government, much less explain how the Congress is constituted or what the electoral college is. Until people are taught these things again or learn them on their own, they will remain ignorant and liberal. But I repeat myself.
Market Economies let the market take care of it’s self (Capitolism, Laissez-faire) on the other hand Planned Economies are ran by the government. (Socilism) Is it so hard to believe that the Democrats would use words like “Manage The Economy” when what they really mean is to plan the ecomomy then manage it themselves?
I’ve said it before Socialism in this country is not being hidden under the table anymore it is blatant, in your face and some people do not recognize it because of the tamato, tamoto factor.
But I guess I’m just an alarmist.
madchef, #2,
We are only making left shoes this year, but I’ll bring you a right shoe from last year when I’m in your soup line.
This pretty much sums it up
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html
jah, that’s great! I am saving the link. It has been many years since I first read this.
Too bad Dr. Friedman is no longer with us, RIP. Although not enough people paid attention while we were graced to have him! And probably even fewer now would listen…
Imagine if the government were in charge of producing pencils, with bureaucrats trying to direct everything instead of the free market. I shudder to think of it!
BAL:
I totally agree with you. A scary thought indeed. Many Americans are so impatient for “change” that they let the government tinker with health care rather than actually discuss how to reform it or make it a more efficient system without government intervention. Americans have become lazy, uninformed (or in this case misinformed), and complacent to even solve problems anymore.
This also goes for the sub-prime mortgage mess. GWB is guilty of pandering just like the Dems… a snort worthy occurrence. Let the market sort itself out and if banks, mortgage brokers, and the like were so blatantly inept as to offer high-risk loans to unworthy consumers, let them go bankrupt. You will only be missed by the entitlement junkies.
Mr. Stossel is spot on. Too bad Americans would rather suck on the teat of government rather than accept responsibility for their own ineptness.
It bothers me, too. A far more honest approach would be too acknowledge the free market and that any President and Congress can only influence the economy by incentive and dis-incentive. (i.e., mortgage interest rate deductions encourage home ownership, etc.)
Mitt Romney would have, too.
What if Mitt rejoin the fray… Huckabee is going to go all the way to the convention with less delegates than what Mitt had. I am not familiar with what it would take for Romney to get back in. If there is a way, why not?
I remember Mitt still falling for the same line too though. Remember, it’s his “experience” that will help the economy.
As far as him getting back into the race, unless the satelite falls DIRECTLY on top of him or he’s swallowed up by the earth, McCain’s going to be the nominee.
Is it truly the will of the people to have so much more government (and taxes) in our lives?
How else do you explain the top 3 candidates for the presidential nomination?
Why wouldn’t news corporations (who do not give true fiscal conservatives the time of day) be against any candidate that is so obviously for taxing the crap out of rich, evil corporations?
*boggle*