Comments by vpemmer

"Demonisation of China today, especially in America, can sometimes seem almost as shrill." That might be the case in union town taverns, but to make such a general assertion tarnishes the author's reputation for objectivity.

I submist that fixing Wall Street won't prevent a similar financial crisis in the future. Sure, reducing leverage seems reasonable. It'll have a cost in reduced growth, but maybe it'll add a little safety

But real causation lies in the reluctance of societies from top to bottom to take a recession if they don't have to. It was the success of the Volcker/Greenspan era that subdued inflation first, then recessions second.

Those successes dissipated fear and overfed confidence among public entities and private, debtors and lenders, left and right.

Flying too close to the sun melted Icarus' wings. Again.

"...but the purity of Hayek's view would have been very difficult for governments to adopt in the circumstances of 2008".

If political authorities had adopted a Hayekian approach prior to 2008, the boom would have been muted and the bust may not have happened at all.

Over the last 100 years, government has ractheted-up its take of the US national output from 10% of GDP to 40%. It has not been significantly restructured in that entire time.

Very few argue that government's efforts are not riddled with inefficiencies (Post Office, civil service), social injustice (Soc Sec, and Medicare's impact on workers, Indian Trust fund), coercivity (would you pay all your taxes if there were no threat?), and venality (the impact of the K-12 industry).

It's time for a complete re-think of every one of your dimes that government spends.

Government in the developed world has clearly overstepped its bounds. I suggest the public debt burdens are ample evidence of gross overextension.

In the US, the largest program cluster - senior subsidies (SocialSecurity and Medicare) - endanger their basic goals of enhancing retirement security by threatening the financial stability of the whole society. An unfunded liability of $600,000 per family is not an insignificant failure.

It's time for a complete re-think of everything government does. In fact, I believe it is unavoidable.

High speed rail makes sense where it can pay for itself.

Amtrak's financial performance does not help HSR's case. Clean up Amtrak, then go to work on high speed rail.

Government (federal, state and local) has increased its share of purse from 10% of GDP in 1929 to 40% now. It's been a long and very profitable run for government and its dependents. (See http://www.mygovspending.com/gearbox/History).

However, it is not clear that politicians have handled the money well.

So how have taxpayers done for all the money burned?

Well, retirements are grossly under-funded (Social Security can take the blame on several fronts), education combines high costs and low quality, and the health care system overcharges by a factor of two - thanks to both the private and public portions being socialized - if one looks at insurance as a pool of socialized risks as I do.

In defense, wild cost overruns are normal. And unacceptable.

These three programs are half of an unfocused, inefficient, patronage-ridden government.

It's time for a complete re-think of everything government does. Let's get started.

"Paul Ryan's Republicanomics
The GOP's inflation hysterics spring from ossified Gipperism"

This is a Huffington Post quality headline. The Economist is slipping.

Dear Sir,

Mr. Bryce's discussion of cost is extraordinarily weak. I don't doubt that a strong argument can be made, but he did not do it.

M.S., you probably ought to run that graph back farther in time as best you can, perhaps 10,000 - 15,000 years or so.

If you're interesting in converting non-believers, you'll want to avoid the appearance of selective sampling.

But, of course, if you're just re-enforcing belivers' notions, reaching back would not achieve your goals. In that case, don't bother.

This piece reveals more about Lexington than it does about the right.

The Economist has a bit of Neville Chamberlain in it, I fear.

There is a significant problem with this invoice. It is imcomplete. State and local budgets are blowing through 14%-15% of GDP, while Federal spending is at 24% of GDP.

So ignoring local governments misses a huge slice of taxpayer spending.

A "receipt" tally is already available, adjusted for income, age, and family size, at www.MyGovSpending.com.

This article was quite a piece of politically correct (PC) propaganda! It is not particularly interested in balance or intellectual honesty.

The Economist has seemed adrift for 6-7 years, unsure whether it should pursue a classically liberal line or cater to more recognizably socialist sympathies.

Dear Economist,

I was hoping for more specifics about "America’s distorted energy markets..." The lack of detail supporting a sweeping assertion is often an accurate signal than a statement is only an unquestioned assumption.

I don't know that this is, but the author presents no evidence that the statement is not just a few liters of journalistic drivel, either.

With the newly energized, poorer countries adding quality labor to the global economy, American workers of low or average skill levels are not particularly competitive employees.

Once the differential between the two worlds narrows significantly, then US workers will be more employable.

Curious how electoral corruption misses the Economists' attention: politicians support programs that are financially ruinious to the general public because the programs keep said politicians in power.

In the US, look at Social Security and Medicare - politicians collect taxes (via the threat of force, of course) and borrow vast sums (loaded upon future taxpayers) to transfer money to people who don't need it (half of recipients have above average incomes) but DO vote for the status quo.

Revenue flowing through the "public" K-12 education industry fits the same profile. Here we have coercively gathered revenues pumped through a poorly performing industry to reward a politically appetizing segment of workers.

The funds involved are in the trillions annually. If one is looking for ethical violations, there are certainly rich pickings here.

The hysteria emanates from the Economist, not AZ citizens.

It damages journalistic integrity to treat a serious topic with so little thought and so much emotion.

Shape up, Economist. This is beneath you.

It's way past time to allow private carriers into the market for first class mail.

No amount of reform will make the PO efficient or responsive to customer demands if it has no competition.