The inestimable Thomas Sowell, truly a national treasure and a man who is as great at clearly conveying concepts as anyone you can think of, offered this bit in response to how best address the economic downturn that followed the 2008 housing bubble burst.
My only criticism is that I am fairly certain that Dr. Sowell is a, “national treasure,” as opposed to a, “national treasurer.” I bet a computer proverbially stabbed the author in the back on that.
Peter, I have often wondered if Sowell & Krauthammer were chatting, about what points would they disagree, if any? Seeing the photo of Friedman makes me want to throw him into the mix, too.
I haven't had as much exposure to Krauthammer as to Sowell and Friedman, so it's hard for me to speculate. I think differences would be in policy rather than philosophy, especially foreign policy.
Could you please do a blog on what foreign policy differences you would expect between them? It is very interesting to me to understand differences between great men I respect.
Oh, that would require a really deep dive into Krauthammer's views. I'm certainly not versed enough to opine off the cuff with any conviction, but I will ponder.
It amazes me how often our minds ponder the same topics at similar times. I would begrudge you for stealing my ideas, but you do a far better job expressing them. In particular, your analogizing the economy to planting seeds was brilliant. As to leaving well-enough alone, the federal government would do well to heed the words of James Madison from the Federalist No. 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the state governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendancy over the governments of the particular states."
The government has grown way too large for its britches. Time to whittle down federal regulation - don't spam the [delete] key through the tome of statutes, just burn the whole book - and get back to a minimal federal government focused on defending our liberties and our borders.
Sadly, the percentage of politicians who actually want to cut regulations and downsize government is very small. The GOP pays more lip service to it than the Dems do, but what they really mean is "cut the regs we don't like, but manage the economy the way that favors our constituents." Especially of late, with populism and Trumpism having mostly displaced old fashioned economic conservatism.
"cut the regs we don't like, but manage the economy the way that favors our constituents." I think you meant, ""cut the regs we don't like, but manage the economy the way that favors our party and our wallets." I don't think even the Republicans have any concern for their constituents any longer (if they ever did).
Populism, Trumpism, conservatism, classical liberalism...give me good ol' fashioned Constitutionalism.
Oh, there are plenty who eat at the GOP trough. Why do you think donors donate? Barring a few exceptions, it's not to have government do less for them.
"Let," not "make."
My only criticism is that I am fairly certain that Dr. Sowell is a, “national treasure,” as opposed to a, “national treasurer.” I bet a computer proverbially stabbed the author in the back on that.
I "oopsed" this publication - should have gone out tomorrow, and I'd have proofed it before then. Fixed, thanks.
It happens to the best of us! The content is SPOT ON!
Peter, I have often wondered if Sowell & Krauthammer were chatting, about what points would they disagree, if any? Seeing the photo of Friedman makes me want to throw him into the mix, too.
I haven't had as much exposure to Krauthammer as to Sowell and Friedman, so it's hard for me to speculate. I think differences would be in policy rather than philosophy, especially foreign policy.
Could you please do a blog on what foreign policy differences you would expect between them? It is very interesting to me to understand differences between great men I respect.
Oh, that would require a really deep dive into Krauthammer's views. I'm certainly not versed enough to opine off the cuff with any conviction, but I will ponder.
Hey Listen, any man who can do rocket science …
It amazes me how often our minds ponder the same topics at similar times. I would begrudge you for stealing my ideas, but you do a far better job expressing them. In particular, your analogizing the economy to planting seeds was brilliant. As to leaving well-enough alone, the federal government would do well to heed the words of James Madison from the Federalist No. 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the state governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate indeed the federal powers may be rendered to the national defence, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favour their ascendancy over the governments of the particular states."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0254
The government has grown way too large for its britches. Time to whittle down federal regulation - don't spam the [delete] key through the tome of statutes, just burn the whole book - and get back to a minimal federal government focused on defending our liberties and our borders.
Sadly, the percentage of politicians who actually want to cut regulations and downsize government is very small. The GOP pays more lip service to it than the Dems do, but what they really mean is "cut the regs we don't like, but manage the economy the way that favors our constituents." Especially of late, with populism and Trumpism having mostly displaced old fashioned economic conservatism.
"cut the regs we don't like, but manage the economy the way that favors our constituents." I think you meant, ""cut the regs we don't like, but manage the economy the way that favors our party and our wallets." I don't think even the Republicans have any concern for their constituents any longer (if they ever did).
Populism, Trumpism, conservatism, classical liberalism...give me good ol' fashioned Constitutionalism.
Oh, there are plenty who eat at the GOP trough. Why do you think donors donate? Barring a few exceptions, it's not to have government do less for them.