Listening to Joe Kiernan today on CNBC, found myself shouting at the screen but he couldn't hear me so I want to let this out here. Not intended to be political at all, this is about economic growth, so hoping this is kosher. Joe was grilling a business person, essentially saying that he should concede that small government with less regulation is obviously better for business than bigger government, more oversight, more entitlements with higher taxes on business and high-earning citizens . The guy didn't budge; those two gentlemen obviously hold opposing views. For my part, and what I was shouting, was about the data which shows that Joe is wrong.
Do we not have enough data since, let's say WWII so about 75 years, that the macroeconomy tends to do better (maybe counterintuitively) when the government is bigger and more active with regulation, even with relatively higher tax rates, than in a more hands-off, "business-friendly" environment? From Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth (paraphrased): From 1948 through 2023, the party holding the presidency has changed hands ten times. Every time a more 'business friendly' administration took over from a more 'big-government, taxation and entitlements" administration, GDP growth fell. Every time the reverse happened, GDP growth rose.
And if that indeed is true and can be defended with data, then I don't know why it is not talked about more, especially in the midst of an election cycle.
ETA: The most recent comment in the Jerome Powell testimony just referenced an editorial written for the Las Vegas Sun, published last week, on this very point. It's pretty easy to find for anyone motivated to do so.
Do we not have enough data since, let's say WWII so about 75 years, that the macroeconomy tends to do better (maybe counterintuitively) when the government is bigger and more active with regulation, even with relatively higher tax rates, than in a more hands-off, "business-friendly" environment? From Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth (paraphrased): From 1948 through 2023, the party holding the presidency has changed hands ten times. Every time a more 'business friendly' administration took over from a more 'big-government, taxation and entitlements" administration, GDP growth fell. Every time the reverse happened, GDP growth rose.
And if that indeed is true and can be defended with data, then I don't know why it is not talked about more, especially in the midst of an election cycle.
ETA: The most recent comment in the Jerome Powell testimony just referenced an editorial written for the Las Vegas Sun, published last week, on this very point. It's pretty easy to find for anyone motivated to do so.
Last edited:
RIDE finally going bankrupt. So long 2020. Those was some fun gambling times.
haven’t followed along here much and mostly indexing still but a guy I ride bicycles with has a Rivian truck I admired a while ago. Decided to put a few thousand into it; I think this is the fastest Double I’ve hit ever. Really wish I had gone with more, but Thems the brakes.
If the 10 year would just start moderating a bit and not getting crushed over and over I'd really be killing it this year.
(thanks for pushing me in that direction)
