Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 657)

Obama-SOTU-2016-Getty

U.S. President Barack Obama, center, gives his final State of the Union (SOTU) address to Congress and the nation on January 12, 2015. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In the commercial that President Obama released prior to his final State of the Union address, Obama said he would tell Congress how “optimistic” he is about America’s future.

Good. Politicians and the media are at their most dangerous when they try to scare us, telling us disaster is on the way unless we follow, and pay for, their latest schemes to “protect” us.

I’m cautiously optimistic about the future, too, if only because our last 200 years have shown that despite politicians’ attacks on open markets and individual freedom, people keep getting richer and living longer.

When Obama talks about the America we are creating together, it would be more honest if he congratulated Americans for all the progress we make despite government fighting us at every turn — with taxes and regulations and booming debt that lowers the value of each dollar.

Of course, presidents want to be remembered positively, and Obama’s cheerleaders are eager to put a happy spin on things in his final year in office.

Michael Grunwald at Politico decided to help with a piece about Obama’s policy accomplishments, describing America as “the nation he built.” Obama once told us that if you have a business, “you didn’t build that,” so I guess now we know who does the building.

Grunwald praises Obamacare for expanding the number of Americans with health insurance and points out that, at the same time, the administration also sneaked through a government takeover of student loan debt. John Boehner was correct to complain that “the president will sign not one, but two job-killing government takeovers.”

But Grunwald says that sticking taxpayers with billions of dollars of student debt was part of the “relentless government activism” needed to give America “a profound course correction” that also changed “the way we produce and consume energy, the way doctors and hospitals treat us, the academic standards in our schools and the long-term fiscal trajectory of the nation.”

All that is true, if by changing how we consume energy he means shutting down pipelines while ignoring private industry’s wonderful fracking revolution.

If by changing the way doctors treat us he means locking still more people into bureaucracies instead of letting a true health market flourish.

If academic standards mean imposing weird testing regimens and teaching methods like Common Core.

And if “long-term fiscal trajectory” means nearly doubling our federal debt, now almost $19 trillion, and doing nothing to slow America’s coming entitlements bankruptcy.
Leftists can credit Obama with policy successes because Obama often outmaneuvered Republicans and got bills he wanted. Unfortunately, the left rarely looks closely at whether those bills really made Americans better off.

Grunwald says Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package crammed in a whole administration’s worth of programs in one go — but Grunwald adds only in passing that economists don’t agree on whether the stimulus accomplished anything good.

That’s the whole problem. Politicians unleash programs — the more complicated the better — and then take credit later for anything good that happens, blaming the bad things on their political opponents.

It usually takes years to figure out what the programs’ real impacts were, if we ever do. People still argue — 80 years later — about whether the New Deal prolonged or helped end the Great Depression.

We don’t know if the country is better or worse off because of “relentless government activism.” We libertarians argue that government helps us by keeping the peace and providing a level playing field but that beyond that, most government intervention does harm. That’s why we’re better off if individuals can pick and choose which things work for us.

In a real marketplace, individuals go to the schools we choose, buy health care we want and pay our own debts.

I’m optimistic about America, too — but not because we “come together” and function as a single union. I’m optimistic because in most areas of life, we’re still free to make our own decisions.

Obama would be more honest if he

[brid video=”24610″ player=”2077″ title=”Professor Alan Dershowitz Colleges are “Places Where People are Afraid of Ideas””]

Liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said on Fox and Friends that colleges have become “places where people are afraid of ideas.” Dershowitz, who was warning about out-of-control political correctness, told college students to “stay home” if they want a safe space.

DERSHOWITZ: They blame places where people are afraid of ideas. They think they know the truth. And they don’t want to hear opposing points of view. They know everything they need to know about race, about gender, about rape, about you name it, climate control. They don’t want to hear opposing points of view… they want to be kept safe from ideas that they may disagree with. And if they want to be safe from ideas, there are better places to be than college and university campuses…

When I was first teaching in the ’50s there were attempts to censor speech by Senator McCarthy. the right wing was trying to censor left-wing speech. Now it’s the hard left that’s trying to censor right-wing speech, conservative speech, Christian speech, pro-Israel speech, you name it.

And this idea of safe spaces. We have to distinguish between safe spaces for ideas, where there should be none, and physically safe places where you’re not intimidated or you’re not threatened. And christian speakers, pro-Israel speakers, speakers that are not politically correct today, have their physical safety endangered.

I know when i speak on college campuses in favor of Israel, I need armed guards protecting me from radical leftist students who would use physical intimidation. They won’t give me a safe space. They won’t give pro-Israel students a safe space. They won’t give Christian students a safe space.

Liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said

USS-Harry-S-Truman
Aircraft Carrier U.S.S. Harry S. Truman steams underway on March 29, 2003 in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. U.S. Navy / Getty Images File

DEVELOPING: As many as 10 U.S. Navy sailors were detained Tuesday by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Navy (IRCGN) after at least one vessel became disabled and drifted into Iranian territorial waters, a senior military official confirmed. No reason was given for the vessel becoming incapacitated, but Pentagon officials said the incident happened near Farsi Island, which is located in the middle of the Persian Gulf.

The Pentagon said Secretary of State John Kerry has spoken with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, and that the U.S. has received assurances that all the sailors will be returned safely. Spokesman Peter Cook told The Associated Press that the boats were moving between Kuwait and Bahrain when the U.S. lost contact with them.

“We have been in contact with Iran and have received assurances that the crew and the vessels will be returned promptly,” Cook said.

Cook said the naval vessels were moving between Kuwait and Bahrain when the U.S. lost contact with them.

“Today’s episode in the Persian Gulf, where the Iranian military seized two American ships and are currently holding 10 of our sailors hostage is an absolute travesty and if we had real leadership in the White House, would not be tolerated,” prospective candidate for U.S. Senate in Louisiana, retired Colonel Rob Maness said in a statement to PPD. “Unfortunately, this was the result of 7 years of American weakness abroad and a President who has routinely stood down to our enemies instead of facing them head-on.”

This comes on the heels of an incident in late December when the IRCGN conducted what U.S. officials called a “highly provocative” live-fire rocket test next to the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier.

As many as 10 U.S. Navy sailors

Istanbul-Turkey-Suicide-Bombing-01-12-16

Police officers secured the area after an explosion in Istanbul on Tuesday. (Photo: Osman Orsal/Reuters)

A suicide bomber believed to be Syrian and tied to the Islamic State (ISIS) killed at least 10 people and wounded 15 others in a historic district of Istanbul. The suicide bombing is the latest in a series of terrorist attacks that truck one of the most heavily trafficked areas of the city.

“Turkey is the first target of all terrorist groups,” said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a televised address. He claimed the bomber was Syrian and referenced both the Islamic State and Kurdish separatists, but did not assign blame to either group. He added that Turkey was “fighting against all of them equally.” The Sultanahmet district, which was attacked on Tuesday, was also the target of suicide bomber last January, when a Russian citizen with possible ties to the Islamic State detonated a bomb at a police station.

PPD can confirm that 9 out of the 10 people killed in Tuesday’s attack were German, as the historical district in Istanbul is a popular tourist destination, particuarly for Germans. Officials and community businesses worry about the impact from terrorism, which of course, is one of the goals.

“Tourism had already dried up after last year’s explosion, but after this it’s game over,” said Ayse Demir, a local shopkeeper, speaking to the New York Times. “No one is going to risk their lives for shopping and history.”

German officials said on a government website that further violent clashes and “terrorist attacks” are expected across Turkey. Germany also urged travelers to stay away from demonstrations and gatherings, particularly in large cities.

“Today Istanbul was hit; Paris has been hit, Tunisia has been hit, Ankara has been hit before,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. “International terrorism is once again showing its cruel and inhuman face today.”

After a briefing from Efkan Ala, Turkey’s interior minister, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called an emergency meeting of ministers following a briefing with Turkey’s Interior Minister Efkan Ala. The meeting was held in Ankara before President Erdogan made his televised address. Mr. Erdogan offered a scathing critique of foreign scholars and writers, including Noam Chomsky, for criticism of his government.

“Pick a side,” Mr. Erdogan said. “You are either on the side of the Turkish government, or you’re on the side of the terrorists.”

A suicide bomber believed to be Syrian

Obama-Four-Point-ISIS-Plan

President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office about the his plan to defeat ISIS, left, and Middle East graphic, right. (Photo: PPD/AP)

A new Morning Consult survey conducted ahead of President Obama’s final State of the Union address shows combating ISIS is the issue voters most want to hear about. A quarter of voters (26%) said combatting the Islamic State is the issue they want to hear about most, while 20% said they want to know about the economy.

Sixty-two percent of voters said it was very important to them that Obama talk about American efforts against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), while 63% said it was very important he talk about jobs and the economy.

How important is it that President Obama discusses ___?

                                   Imp Not
Improving economy/creating jobs    86%  6%
Combatting the Islamic State       83   9
Providing direction/leadership     82   9
Reducing poverty in the U.S.       76  16
Improving health care system       76  16
Improving education system         73  18
Reducing gun violence              70  22
Improving race relations           65  26
Combatting climate change          55  36
Reducing global poverty            52  39

Still, according to this particular survey, national security overall remains slightly behind the economy as the most important issue influencing voters’ decisions for the November elections at 27% to 32%, respectively.

Going into the SOTU, only 32% of Americans say they believe the country is headed in the right direction and, as he begins his final year in office, just 42% of registered voters say they approve of the job Obama is doing. Not surprisingly, voters who are most concerned about national security issues like the Islamic State are also least likely to approve of the job Obama has done. Just 18% of those who said security was their top issue approve of his job performance.

On the flip side, more than half of voters who said women’s issues, education, energy and Medicare or Social Security was their top concern, approve of Obama’s job performance.

[caption id="attachment_33248" align="aligncenter" width="740"] President Obama addressed

President Barack Obama in Dec. 2015. (Photo Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

President Barack Obama in Dec. 2015. (Photo Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

Limbaugh

The liberal media seem perplexed that President Obama plans to deviate from his usual State of the Union practice of “asking” Congress for a laundry list of policy proposals and “not talking about himself.”

You heard me right; the narrative is that Obama hasn’t talked about himself in previous SOTUs. If that’s their perception, can you imagine what an ego-fest — a virtual orgy of self-congratulation — this could be? But enough about that for now. I just ask that you sympathize with those of us who feel as if we have to watch it because it promises to be even worse than the preceding ones — and that’s a very high bar.

The media just can’t help themselves. They are also wrong that Obama has generally asked Congress to embrace his policy agenda, as opposed to browbeating it (or the Supreme Court) to kowtow. After his initial honeymoon expired, Obama never really tried to convince Congress of anything. His SOTU speeches were mostly televised harangues at Congress trying to publicly shame it into supporting his proposals. For him, it’s never been about bipartisanship.

Perhaps what the media should be saying is that Obama has given up any pretense of convincing Congress through popular pressure he generates from his bully pulpit, emphasis on “bully,” because he is a lame duck, emphasis on “lame,” and because this is a presidential election year.

Even if Obama did harbor the illusion that he could use his nonexistent magical powers to persuade Congress to assist him in further dividing and destroying the nation, he realizes that can’t work this year. Even establishment Republicans are not going to cave on any of Obama’s remaining obsessions.

But any change from him will be only pro forma. Obama is an ideological zealot, still hellbent on advancing his leftist agenda. Though he probably won’t try to cajole Congress into acting on his behalf, don’t think for a second that he’s abandoned his agenda.

Being who he is, Obama will not be deterred. You’ll note that congressional opposition has never given him pause — and certainly not enough to reconsider whether his ideas are in line with a majority of Americans. It has just angered him enough to grow ever more lawless and impose his agenda unilaterally.

I suppose some people still haven’t figured this out yet, but Obama’s narcissism doesn’t just drive him to establish a presidential legacy. He aims much higher. He doesn’t see his transformative potential limited by a mere two terms in office. He seeks to continue laying the groundwork for further radical changes once out of office, both through a Democratic successor and by remaining an active player in the private sector as a “community organizer.”

He plans on returning to community organizing when he’s out of office, but we know that both “community” and “organizing” are euphemisms. He has no intention of restricting his activities to the community level, and he doubtlessly aims to be more proactive than “organizing” implies.

Ironically, Obama has been remarkably unsuccessful at using his “organizing” skills inside the system — by getting Congress to support his legislative proposals — with the major exception of the budgetary process. But he’s been extremely effective at “organizing” people around the country to do his radical bidding — stirring up racial strife and class warfare, fanning the flames of distrust between minorities and law enforcement, and alienating various other groups against each other. He has every reason to believe he can continue to be effective in this regard when out of office — as if this were a worthwhile goal.

Don’t just take my word for it. In a video preview of his address, Obama said: “What I want to focus on in this State of the Union address (is) not just the remarkable progress we’ve made, not just what I want to get done in the year ahead, but what we all need to do together in the years to come — the big things that will guarantee an even stronger, better, more prosperous America for our kids, the America we believe in. That’s what’s on my mind.”

It is important to ask, who is “we”? What is “progress”? What are the “big things”? And what is “the America we believe in”?

We know “we” is not those who believe in the American idea, the Constitution, American exceptionalism or a strong America. We know “progress” is not progress but the forward march of socialism and leftist cultural momentum. We know that some of “the big things” are further advancing socialized medicine, punishment of the “rich,” enabling Iran, flooding our borders, further emasculating our military and weakening America, gun control, and environmental fascism. We know that “the America we believe in” is not the America we believe in.

We’d better brace ourselves, folks. This last year of two miserable terms is not going to be better. Obama has big plans for his pen and phone, and his upcoming speech is going to be a bizarre victory lap combined with in-your-face promises of more (and worse) to come.

We can never let our guard down.

[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Ahead of his the president's last State

Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks at the Dallas Regional Chamber at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on March 16, 2015.  He spoke on the 2015 State of the State. (Michael Ainsworth/The Dallas Morning News) 03182015xALDIA

Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks at the Dallas Regional Chamber at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on March 16, 2015. He spoke on the 2015 State of the State. (Michael Ainsworth/The Dallas Morning News) 03182015xALDIA

In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.

The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call “messing with the Constitution.” A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal “USA Today.”

The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.

This began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of “reforms” the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to “interpret” the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.

It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices — to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.

This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment’s protections.

For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment’s provision of “equal protection” of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of “affirmative action.”

Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word “diversity,” whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated.

The judicial pretense of merely “interpreting” the Constitution is just part of the dishonesty in this process. The underlying claim that it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution was belied during the very years when the Progressive movement was getting underway in the early 20th century.

The Constitution was amended four times in eight years! Over the years since it was adopted, the Constitution has been amended more than two dozen times. Why, then, is the proposal to call a convention of states to propose — just propose — amendments to the Constitution considered such a radical and dangerous departure?

Legally, it is no departure at all. The Constitution itself lists a convention of states among the ways that amendments can be officially proposed. It has not yet been done, but these proposals will have to be put to a vote of the states, three-fourths of whom will have to agree before any amendment can become law.

Is it better to have the Constitution amended de facto by a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court? By the unilateral actions of a president? By administrative rulings by anonymous bureaucrats in federal agencies, to whom federal judges “defer”?

The idea that a convention of states could run amok and rewrite the Constitution overlooks the fact that it would take the votes of two-thirds of the states just to convene a convention, and then three-fourths of the states to actually pass an amendment.

Far from proposing radical departures from the Constitution, most of Governor Abbott’s proposed amendments would restore Constitutional protections that have been surreptitiously eroded by unelected federal judges and by unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies, who create a major part of “the law of the land,” with the help of “deference” from federal judges.

Why are “We the People” to be kept out of all this, through our elected representatives, when these are the very words with which the Constitution of the United States begins?

Despite the left’s portrayal of themselves as champions of the people, they consistently try to move decisions out of the hands of the general public and into the hands of officials insulated from the voters, such as unelected federal judges and anonymous bureaucrats with iron-clad job protection.

No wonder they don’t want to have a convention that would restore a Constitution which begins with “We the People.”

[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

In recent years, a small but growing

Obama Immigration Speech

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

As respectable Republicans panic over Donald Trump’s storm of insults against Hispanics, Democrats may be tempted to sit back and watch the other party estrange millions of potential voters. But they do so at their own peril.

Democrats already have the luxury of being far less offensive, whatever position they take on immigration. But they must take a position, and that position must draw a line between legal and illegal. To do so, they can’t flinch when advocates of open borders unleash unpleasant accusations against any Democrat who attempts to honor that line.

Fear of uncontrolled immigration is not limited to crazed right-wing white folk. Blacks have long felt themselves unfairly replaced by immigrants. As poet Toni Morrison wrote, “whatever the ethnicity or nationality of the immigrant, his nemesis is understood to be African American.” The evidence remains anecdotal, but many blacks have expressed support for Trump over this issue.

Many immigrants also have highly mixed feelings about open borders. To my surprise, a nonwhite nurse from the Philippines, a friend, has been sending me pro-Trump literature.

Over half of Latinos in the U.S. workforce were born in this country. They are thoroughly American. And that doesn’t count the huge number of foreign-born Hispanic workers here legally.

Their wages and benefits are also being depressed by unauthorized migrants willing to work for less. And as many states and cities raise their minimum wages, some employers will be even more tempted to hire the undocumented under the table and at lower pay.

Many Democrats who honor and admire immigrants remain frustrated by a surge of unskilled foreign workers into the hard-hit bottom rungs of the labor market. It is one cause of economic inequality. A Pew Research Center poll has 79 percent of Democrats saying that the immigration system needs to be completely rebuilt. And just look at the exasperated comments by self-described liberals following opinion pieces praising the benefits of immigration without making any distinction between legal and not.

The reasonable path out of the mess is to legalize most of the undocumented while stopping future unauthorized migrants. President Obama valiantly tried to win over skeptics by demonstrating a will to enforce. For these efforts, the open-border crowd on the left condemns him as “deporter in chief.”

Note the hostile reaction to Obama’s recent move to discourage a new surge of illegal immigration from Central America. Agents for his Department of Homeland Security had arrested for deportation 121 migrants whose claims for asylum were denied in the courts.

“Our borders are not open to illegal migration,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said. In any other country, that would have been an unremarkable statement.
But advocates for undocumented immigrants and some Democrats in Congress went ballistic. They accused Obama of crimes against innocent families.
If powerful Democrats can’t back deporting 121 people whose appeals for asylum were turned down, why would the American public trust them to respect a comprehensive immigration solution?

As the party of unions and working people, the Democratic Party used to be more hawkish on immigration than the GOP — and with the support of its immigrant members. At a certain point, though, many leading Democrats replaced the labor agenda with an ethnic one.

Because Trump’s magic sauce includes a strong defense of the social security net, Bernie Sanders thinks he could attract some of the populist’s working-class supporters. He or Hillary Clinton probably could. But each must first make clear that our national labor market can’t be a global one. That means defending the principle, without apology, that who and how many come into this country matters.

Froma Harrop: Democrats must take a position

FOX-Business-debate

Donald Trump, Ben Caron, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich come out on stage for the fourth Republican debate hosted by FOX Business and the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 10, 2015. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

FOX Business Network announced the participants in its two Republican debates on Thursday, Jan. 14, in North Charleston, S.C. The participants in the first undercard debate, which will air love at 6 p.m. ET will be Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; former HP CEO Carly Fiorina; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

The lineup marks the first time Sen. Paul has been relegated to the undercard debate, while Fiorina has participated in the primetime debates since using the first undercard to propel her to the top tier. However, she has been unable to capitalize on the momentum she had gain and, thus far, has not released a statement on the news.

Meanwhile Sen. Paul’s campaign released a statement that declared “he will not let the media decide the tiers of this race and will instead take his message directly to the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa.”

“Even the pollsters are concerned that the media is using their polls incorrectly. Polls are at best an estimation, and include a standard of error that the media and the RNC are ignoring,” the statement read. “A poll number of five is no different than a poll number of 8 if the standard of error is +/- 3. To exclude candidates on faulty analysis is to disenfranchise the voter.”

The participants in the prime-time Republican debate at 9 p.m. ET will be: Billionaire businessman Donald Trump; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

FOX Business Network announced the participants in

Shanghai-Composite-China-Stock-Market-Exchange

A trader looks at the losses with the Shanghai Composite index, the China stock market. (Photo: Reuters)

The long-term trend in China is positive. Economic reforms beginning in the late 1970s have helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty.

And thanks to decades of strong growth, living standards for ordinary Chinese citizens are far higher than they used to be. There’s still quite a way to go before China catches up to western nations, but the numbers keep improving.

That being said, China’s economy has hit a speed bump. The stock market’s recent performance has been less than impressive and economic growth has faltered.

Is this the beginning of the end of the Chinese miracle?

If you asked me about six months ago, I would have expressed pessimism. The government was intervening in financial markets to prop up prices, and that was after several years of failed Keynesian-style spending programs that were supposed to “stimulate” growth.

But maybe my gloom was premature.

An article in The Economist examines the new “supply-side” focus of China’s leader (H/T: Powerline).

Mr Xi has seemed to channel the late American president. He has been speaking openly for the first time of a need for “supply-side reforms”—a term echoing one made popular during Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s. It is now China’s hottest economic catchphrase (even featuring in a state-approved rap song, released on December 26th: “Reform the supply side and upgrade the economy,” goes one catchy line). …Mr Xi’s first mentions of the supply side, or gongjice, in two separate speeches in November, were not entirely a surprise. For a couple of years think-tanks affiliated with government ministries had been promoting the concept (helped by a new institute called the China Academy of New Supply-Side Economics).

Sounds encouraging, though it’s important to understand that there’s a big difference between rhetoric and reality.

Talking about “gongjice” is a good start, but are Chinese officials actually willing to reduce government’s economic footprint?

Perhaps.

Their hope is that such reforms will involve deep structural changes aimed at putting the economy on a sounder footing, rather than yet more stimulus. …Mr Xi’s aim may be to reinvigorate reforms that were endorsed by the Communist Party’s 370-member Central Committee in 2013, a year after he took over as China’s leader. They called for a “decisive” role to be given to market forces

Wow, the communists in China want free markets. Maybe there’s hope for some of America’s more statist politicians!

All kidding aside, there’s some evidence that officials in Beijing realize that the Keynesian experiment of recent years didn’t work any better than Obama’s 2009 spending binge.

Here’s more from the article.

Those who first pushed supply-side reform onto China’s political agenda want a clean break with the credit-driven past. Jia Kang, an outspoken researcher in the finance ministry who co-founded the new supply-side academy, defines the term in opposition to the short-term demand management that has often characterised China’s economic policy—the boosting of consumption and investment with the help of cheap money and dollops of government spending.The result of the old approach has been a steep rise in debt (about 250% of GDP and counting) and declining returns on investment. Supply-siders worry that it is creating a growing risk of stagnation, or even a full-blown economic crisis. Mr Jia says the government should focus instead on simplifying regulations to make labour, land and capital more productive. Making it easier for private companies to invest in sectors currently reserved for bloated state-run corporations would be a good place to start, some of his colleagues argue.

This is music to my ears.

Assuming President Xi is willing to adopt the types of reforms advocated by Mr. Jia, China’s economy will have a very bright future.

The key goal for policy makers in Beijing should be to improve China’s economic freedom score over the next 10 years by as much as it improved between 1980 and 2005.

In other words, if China adopts genuine free markets like Hong Kong and Singapore–and, to a lesser extent, Taiwan–then it will simply be a matter of time before living standards reach – and exceed – levels found in western nations.

I’ll close by outlining two challenges for Beijing.

First, entrenched interest groups will be an obstacle to pro-growth reform. In this sense, politics in China is very similar to politics in Greece, America, France, and South Africa. The sad reality is that too many people – all over the world – think it’s morally acceptable to obtain unearned wealth via the coercive power of government. Though there are reasons to be optimistic because a strong majority of Chinese people have expressed support for free markets.

Second, even if China’s leaders overcome the interest groups and adopt good long-run policy, there’s still the challenge of short-term dislocation and instability caused by so-called stimulus programs and easy-money policy from the central bank. Just like you can’t un-ring a bell, you can’t magically undo the malinvestments caused by those policies. So Beijing will need to weather a temporary economic storm at the same time it engage in long-run reform.

P.S. If you want to know a recipe for Chinese stagnation, simply look at the IMF’s recommendations.

P.P.S. Some senior Chinese officials have a very astute understanding of why welfare states don’t work.

While long-term economic trends in China have

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial