I almost made it through an entire Paul Craig Roberts article regarding the economy in virtually complete agreement, and then he slips into his (standard) view in the very last paragraph:
"Those who believe in government and those who believe in deregulation will be proved equally wrong."
As a side note, sadly this suggests that there is no economic model in existence that can prove sufficient for governing human action. Both more government involvement and less government involvement will fail, is what he suggests. Of course, PCR is incorrect.
It also demonstrates he is incorrect about what has gone on with government regulation. Why does PCR insist on maintaining this charade?
The government is more involved in regulating the economy today than it has been at any time since WWII. What does one call the tens of trillions injected by the Fed to save the system other than government regulation? What does he describe as the unprecedented boom in the real estate market in the period 2001 – 2007 other than government regulation?
PCR looks to the elimination of regulations such as Glass-Steagall, bemoaning the passing, as if nothing else in the swirling morass of government involvement in the economy has occurred.
I am 100% for regulation – market regulation. It may not be perfect, but it doesn’t suffer the drawbacks of being politically manipulated.
PCR, please show some faith in the market – a free market, not the one manipulated by government; the one you believe has somehow been damaged by so-called deregulation.