Brilliant deductions

Reading Robert Samuelson's plaintive query, "why, oh why, does the Obama administration get such good press?" -- To which I answer, Could it be because the administration is operating pretty well -- we learn something we hadn't known.

Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be the unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.

Really? Johnson's economic policies proved disastrous and led to '70s stagflation? That was news to me. I hoped Dean Baker could explain how that enigma had been solved. He does not disappoint.

Wow, it was Johnson and Kennedy's economic policies that caused the sharp slowdown of productivity growth in the 70s? That's impressive. For the last 35 years economists have struggled to find the explanation for the sharp slowdown in productivity growth, from close to 3.0 percent annually to 1.5 percent annually. Now Samuelson tells us he has the answer. That is really impressive.

Of course, before we give Mr. Samuelson the Nobel for this accomplishment maybe he should fill in a little more of the "how." In other words, what were the horrible things that Kennedy and Johnson did that depressed productivity growth for more than a quarter century after they left office. Whatever it was, it sure must have been really bad.

In Dean's comments you will find some better alternatives to Samuelson's inane theory.