Almost Everything you need to know about Liberal Economists, in One Post.

Shortly after Donald Trump won the election, the market tanked by about half a thousand points.  Liberal, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman took the the editorial section of the New York Times to postulate that the market would likely never recover (if you’re hit by a paywall on the link, simply Google “Paul Krugman, economy won’t recover trump”).

Two weeks later the market was back in positive territory.  Two months later a bear market is being described as a bull market by some economists (i.e. doubtfully Mr. Krugman) and we’re in new record territory.

In fact, it was reported that vaunted liberal weenie, George Soros bet on that very notion laid down by Krugman, that the US wouldn’t recover, and lost a Billion Dollars when the market roared back less than a week later.

To call liberal Economists clueless or stupid would be too easy.  From Paul Krugman to John Maynard Keynes, there’s quite a bit of smart in there.  Somewhere.  The real problem appears to be that they’re blinded by their ideological leftism.  Their politics literally make them blind to reality.

This goes all the way back to “Trickle down economics” in the 1980’s.  Liberals, who have been fed a steady diet of lies for decades, believe it “didn’t work”.  In reality though, after a horrible stretch in the late 70’s where the American worker was absolutely hammered by bad, liberal policy, under “trickle down economics” the US workforce added 20,000,000 jobs.  President Obama netted a quarter that.  In every measure, Reagan’s policies smashed those of President Obama…  Except one:  Average Unemployment Rate.  President Obama actually beats Reagan when it comes to the unemployment rate, an average of 7.44 to 7.51 – and more than likely, your average leftie will be spouting, not the actual numbers because they’re not all that impressive, but that Obama had a lower unemployment rate that Reagan did and it’s going to be framed as a good thing.  Let’s go to Forbes for the “rest of the story” that libs always miss because their media outlets rely on their ideological ignorance:

It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.

Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding  into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978. Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field.

How about overall growth? GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent — 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.

Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total . Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate.

And here’s the mic drop:

Ah, but did all of that Reagan bounty trickle down to ordinary Americans, though? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama.

Now, how does all of this apply to the Trump Administration?  You’re about to find out exactly how much our Federal government has been standing on the neck of the economy and the left-wing is scared as hell.  In the near future, President Trump, with the help of Congress, is going to begin unraveling rules and regulations and he’s likely going to be able to go back more than 20 years.  You will hear that this is illegal, you’ll hear that Trump isn’t respecting the rule of Law, and you’ll hear a panicked shriek from coast to coast that it’s Constitutional Armageddon.  It will, all of it, be lies.  Call it fake news.  In reality, the entire unraveling of those rules and regulations will be possible because those bureaucracies ignored the Laws that allow them to make rules in the first place.  Here’s the beautiful gist:

The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA [Ed. Congressional Review Act of 1996] can be used only against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days. That gets Republicans back to June, teeing up 180 rules or so for override. Included are biggies like the Interior Department’s “streams” rule, the Labor Department’s overtime-pay rule, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s methane rule.

But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

There’s much more, including actual real sections of the real Law cited at the Power Line link above which brings the whole story together from multiple sources and I encourage you to read the post, it’s not all that long or complex.

We’re not done yet though.  The best part is that once those rules and regulations are rescinded, according to Law the regulations can’t be reinstated by another President later down the line without Congress passing a Law to allow it.

I say think big:  Think the EPA’s rule making CO2 a pollutant.

As the immortal Ricky Bobby said in Talladega Nights, “Hang on baby Jesus, this is gonna get bumpy.”

Somebody pass the popcorn… and the blue raspberry slushie.

UPDATE:  If you take a moment to peruse the comments section, you’ll see one comment that sticks out and proves my initial point.  Um, uneloquently.  I’ll be printing my post and that comment and framing them to hang on my office wall.