Those favoring an ever-increasing role for the state in our society never cease to remind us how much smarter they are those of us preferring freedom and smaller government. They note how a supermajority of university professors favor their ideology and that how voters with postgraduate degrees overwhelmingly went for Obama last fall.
If they’re so smart, why can’t they learn from history?
I mean, here are these very smart people are, with lots and lots of college degrees (so very much education) among them, yet they insist bigger government will help solve our economic woes. Problem is they can’t come up with many examples of that working.
Socialism failed overwhelmingly in Europe where nations with welfare-state economies having unemployment rates that makes our number seem tiny in comparison.
And those very smart people who actually do study the results of statist policies, find, for example, that New Deal, a program of massive state intervention in the American economy, “thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.”
Another one of those smart people who trust to empirical observation rather than trendy theories, Anna Schwartz, an economist at National Bureau of Economic Research wonders at the
mystical belief in . . . fiscal stimulus as the solution to the current recession. . . . Fiscal stimulus did not end the great contraction from ’29 to ’33 and it didn’t end the slump in Japan. If you make this kind of comment to a true believer you get an anti-intellectual kind of response.
. . . . [the Japanese] paid lavishly for the fiscal stimulus projects that they promoted, and as a result Japan had the biggest fiscal deficit of any advanced country during that period. And the answer to the program for fiscal stimulus that is lacking is an economic explanation of why fiscal stimulus would work, and we do not have such an explanation.
(H/t: Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary–available by subscription.)
An explanation we may not have, but Democratic rhetoric we do.
Note Dr. Schwartz’s observation about pointing out the failure of various government stimuli to stimulate economic growth. Those true believers, many of them with a multitude of college degrees offer an anti-intellectual response. Interesting how intellectuals often respond in such a manner to critics who challenge their conclusions with facts.
Seems like instead of engaging us, they’re just telling us to shut up. Why, I wonder do some very smart people peddle ideas which can be easily discredited and respond to their intellectual adversaries not with counterarguments, but instead with angry rebuttals or pleas for silence?