Americans usually demand excellence but, being realists, accept something less. Our political debate often looks for the best or most excellent solution to problems. But, the politics of the possible makes us accept something less.
Readers will recall we live in a tri-polar world of economics. We have Austrian economics, which argues that the budget should be balanced EVERY year and is often called the "tough-love" school of economics. We have Keynesian economics, which argues that the budget should be in deficit during recessions and in surplus during economic expansions. And, we have Supply-Side economics, which argues that expansion occurs only when the top marginal tax rate is decreased.
Each of the three schools of economics has their own predictable solutions to reducing the dangerously-high national deficit. However, one of my favorite pundits is John Mauldin, a small guy with a large family in Dallas. As he is largely self-taught, he often brings original thoughts to the conversation. This is a comment in his most recent newsletter:
As a businessman, I would rather pay higher taxes on profits than to have no profits at all. Just tell me the rules and I will figure out how to adjust. A Depression to would mean 20% unemployment (at least) and a real lost decade, with the Boomer generation trying to figure out how to deal with no money and no jobs and being old."
In other words, the choice is not between Obama and Romney or whomever. The choice is between a Democrat who would be forced by the credit markets to deal with the deficit now or a Republican who would not be able to accomplish anything due to Democratic opposition.
Looking at the election this way, I could easily become either too depressed or too sober . . .
Readers will recall we live in a tri-polar world of economics. We have Austrian economics, which argues that the budget should be balanced EVERY year and is often called the "tough-love" school of economics. We have Keynesian economics, which argues that the budget should be in deficit during recessions and in surplus during economic expansions. And, we have Supply-Side economics, which argues that expansion occurs only when the top marginal tax rate is decreased.
Each of the three schools of economics has their own predictable solutions to reducing the dangerously-high national deficit. However, one of my favorite pundits is John Mauldin, a small guy with a large family in Dallas. As he is largely self-taught, he often brings original thoughts to the conversation. This is a comment in his most recent newsletter:
"Let me shock a few of my fellow Republicans and say that I think the deficit is such a deadly disease that it would be better for the country for the Democrats to be in power and forced to deal with the situation than to do nothing. I would not like their solution, and I think it would be harmful, but not as harmful as a second Depression, brought on by not dealing with the deficits and entitlement problems.
As a businessman, I would rather pay higher taxes on profits than to have no profits at all. Just tell me the rules and I will figure out how to adjust. A Depression to would mean 20% unemployment (at least) and a real lost decade, with the Boomer generation trying to figure out how to deal with no money and no jobs and being old."
In other words, the choice is not between Obama and Romney or whomever. The choice is between a Democrat who would be forced by the credit markets to deal with the deficit now or a Republican who would not be able to accomplish anything due to Democratic opposition.
Looking at the election this way, I could easily become either too depressed or too sober . . .
