Mike Huckabee "Leading" in Early 2014 Early 2016 GOP Polling, Ought to Be Familiar: Everything Old is New Again

who's who?compilationThe eruption of Chris Christie’s very Jersey scandal (traffic, bullying, cronyism) earlier this year as a national news story may have had more to do with his perceived 2016 aspirations than its wider newsworthiness. New early 2016 polling from CNN suggests the scandal’s taken away the very early “lead” in the Republican presidential nominating contest even earlier CNN polling found, to the benefit of Hillary Clinton, the very early Democrat frontrunner, who’s hoping to leave her national scandals in the past, and who earlier polling found polling within the margin of error in a hypothetical matchup with Christie.

The CNN poll found Mike Huckabee (a “new name” it called him) rising a point above the rest of the GOP field, at 14 percent. (Rand Paul had 13, followed by Christie and Jeb Bush at 10) The murmurs about the former Arkansas governor mulling a 2016 run may be new, but Huckabee, who ran for president in 2008, was considered by some Republican operatives as a presumptive frontrunner in 2012, and has hosted an eponymous weekend show on Fox News for more than five years, is hardly a new name. Less than a year out from the first GOP primaries, Gallup started tracking candidates’ name recognition and “positive intensity” to get a clearer sense of what it actually meant when more familiar names appeared at the top of “trial heat” results.

We’re still twice as far from a 2016 election as Gallup was when it started doing that, but there is some limited polling from them on the name recognition of some of the names thrown around as the primordial 2016 GOP pool. In June of last year, a Gallup poll (pdf) found 20 percent of respondents had never heard of Chris Christie, and 26 percent had never heard of Rand Paul. Mike Huckbaee’s Name ID, and Jeb Bush’s for that matter, weren’t measured. But consider that Paul Ryan, who got 9 percent in CNN’s poll, was “never heard of” by only 19 percent of Gallup responded. Marco Rubio, tied at 9 with Ryan, had 29 percent never hear of him in the Gallup polling. Presumably, Huckabee, a cable news figure and former Republican contender, and Jeb Bush, the brother of a former president and the son of another one, would have far higher name recognition. Without that information, it’s hard to tell what the number means, except that Republicans aren’t sure who they want running for president yet. The more important decision might be in what ideological direction the party should go, something that’s being litigated in Congress and on the state level, not just in the 2014 elections, but in the debates about the party’s agenda that are already preceding them, as Peter Suderman noted when he declared Obama, not in this round of polling questions, was over.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Polls now are totally and absolutely meaningless. Neither Huckabee nor Clinton will be winning any elections.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    That's something that the former Republican nominee is definitely not thinking about right now. To put it in his own recent words: "Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no."

    But that didn't stop the Virginia-based bipartisan policy firm Purple Strategies from adding his name to a recent survey for Granite State voters, which shows Romney in the lead with 25 percent support. Libertarian firebrand Rand Paul (who has strong infrastructure in New Hampshire) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are behind with 18 percent and 17 percent support, respectively.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com.....r-20140130

  • Snark Plissken||

    And Obama will never get re-elected.

    Oh you crazy, deluded optimist. Clinton/Warren 2016 because it's time to go full retard.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I admit, it's mindbogglingly insane that he did. How many times has a bad president with a bad economy won re-election?

  • ||

    The same number of times an appallingly large faction of the American electorate acted upon a desperate need to feel secure in their non-racism.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Well, FDR like a jillion times.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Fool me once, shame on "No Way Obama wins Florida", fool me twice, shame on me.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Still in shock about that. Granted, he barely won, but he won. Amazing the power of race.

  • SugarFree||

    Barf-o-rama, dudes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Paul's chances seem to be improving daily. At last, Kentucky's play for world domination will be realized.

  • John||

    Even though it is a totally stupid made up story, I think the bridge thing is going to kill Christie and maybe keep him from running.

    Huckabee is not winning. Paul looks to be in a good position.

  • Tony||

    I'm going to regret this, but what's made up about it? Better yet--what would be your reaction to 3 Obama administration members taking the 5th...about anything?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why would Obama administration members bother to take the 5th when they can simply lie and get away with it?

  • John||

    Ask Lois Lerner.

  • John||

    It is made up in the sense that various asshole governors engage in this sort of shit all of the time. It was traffic jam.

    And Tony, maybe you missed it but numerous officials under Obama have taken the 5th. In fact the woman at the center of the IRS scandal, you the one that the Chocolate Nixon swears that there isn't a single bit of corruption in, took the 5th Amendment. The Chief counsel of the IRS answered "I don't remember" over 100 times when asked about the issue before Congress. The man can't remember why he went to the White House on multiple occasions or what he did once he was there. Funny that. And that related to using the levers of official power against one's political enemies, which last I looked was a lot bigger deal than closing off a couple of lanes on the GW bridge.

    But since it is racist

  • Tony||

    Which other asshole governors? I'm all ears.

    I want you to look me in the eyes and swear on the baby Jesus that if Christie had a (D) after his name and was similarly ambitious presidency-wise that you'd be reacting in the exact same way.

  • John||

    Cuomo to name one. The mayor of New York whose supporters chuckle about not plowing the streets of the upper east side. The old mayor of New York who allowed streets of union bosses to be plowed first at the cost doing emergency routes. But no one in the Democratic Party is ever held accountable for anything. Sometimes it pays to have brain dead fanatical supporters who will defend and excuse any behavior, no matter how appalling.

    Do you ever ask yourself, why don't Democrats ever do anything wrong? I doubt it.

  • Tony||

    I believe Democrats can do wrong, but am a little puzzled that your examples are all about snow plows. Even I could come up with better shit than that.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Doctor class apply parcel flip service.

  • WTF||

    IRS/Benghazi/NSA/Obamacare etc. are all phony scandals. Not like the deadly serious traffic jam on the GWB.

  • Tony||

    At least it's become an extremely simple matter figuring out who watches FOX News and takes it seriously, so that I don't have to do the same for you.

  • WTF||

    Cool story, bro.

  • ||

    Waaaaaaaa!

  • R C Dean||

    what would be your reaction to 3 Obama administration members taking the 5th...about anything?

    Business as usual in Chicago on the Potomac?

  • Rhywun||

    totally stupid made up story

    New Jersey has 565 municipalities - why haven't the two to three hundred or so other ones run by D's been flooding the airwaves with their own scandals?

  • Paul.||

    Are you suggesting the South will not postpone rising again in 2016?

  • Pro Libertate||

    If at first you don't secede, try, try again.

  • John||

    I always knew they had that cadre of "Kentucky Colonels" for a bigger and unrevealed purpose.

  • ||

    +1 Dan Issel, Artis Gilmore, and Hubie Brown

  • Rasilio||

    Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, the Democrats best hopes of winning the Presidency in 2016

  • Paul.||

    This.

  • Almanian!||

    The Huckster turns my stomach. What a saccharine shitstain dissembling SoCon statist fucktard he is.

    I kind of hope Team Red derps him to the nomination, cause the inevitable implosion to follow would be pretty fun to watch.

    I don't know what his constituency is - people twice as retarded as Santorum's supporters?

    This is gonna be awful...but entertaining...

  • SIV||

    The Huckster doesn't have a record oozing Tea Party cred.

  • Almanian!||

    The Huckster doesn't have a record in AR that oozes TEAM RED cred, much less tea party.

    He's a big-spending statist fuck. And his bass sucks, and he's a shitty bass player, too.

  • ||

    He is quite terrible. Shit, I picked up a bass guitar over the holidays for the first time in 9 years and I might as well have been Victor Wooten compared to that guy.

  • John||

    All this says is that Huckabe has a constituency that likes him and remembers his name. It says nothing about his appeal to the larger GOP or his overall ceiling, which is pretty low.

    http://www.hoover.org/publicat.....cle/167496

    Richard Epstein gives his problems with Rand Paul in a pretty disappointing article, especially from someone like Epstein who is generally a lot smarter than this. First, he equates Paul with Rothbard, which is complete nonsense. Paul has avoided the "get the US out of North America and we should never engage in aggression even if failing to do so leads to our death" horseshit that Rothbard and his acolytes put out. I can't see how you can equate the two.

    The rest of it is a bunch of fucking false dichotomies that totally characterizes the debate. The doctrinaire Libertarian options on the subjects Epstein lists (IP, anti-trust, Eminent Domain) are not even on the table. Even Epstein agrees that IP has gone too far and that ED and antitrust have been abused by crooked government officials. Since everyone agrees on ending the abuses of those things and that is the most that is even possible, what is his beef with Paul?

    And I have no idea what the hell he is talking about with regard to taxes other than Rand Paul and his supporters are a bunch of meanies who say too many mean things about government.

  • SIV||

    get the US out of North America

    WTF?

    Are we relocating to Oceania?

  • John||

    I am pretty sure Rothbard himself invented that phrase. It is now a funny piece of invective to describe people who always find the US at fault no matter what the circumstances.

  • Robert||

    I thought I coined that phrase. It was while Rothbard was still around, though.

  • ||

    Even Epstein agrees that IP has gone too far and that ED and antitrust have been abused by crooked government officials. Since everyone agrees on ending the abuses of those things and that is the most that is even possible, what is his beef with Paul?

    I sort of like Epstein, usually, but I find he's also often very busy with distancing himself from ancap-like positions that nobody is taking or thought he was taking or are on the table or whatever.

  • John||

    I really like Epstein. But these positions are not even AnCap. I am about as un ancap as you can get. But even I understand how stupid most IP and basically all of antitrust law is. That is not ANCAP, that is basic economics that tells you that monopolies never last absent the force of law propping them up or that even when they exist monopolies have an incentive not to raise prices too much or abuse their customers.

    Epstein has to know that. He seems to suffer from Reason staffer disease; that is the constant need to sound "reasonable" to his various liberal friends and colleagues.

  • SIV||

    Epstein has to know that. He seems to suffer from Reason staffer disease; that is the constant need to sound "reasonable" to his various liberal friends and colleagues.

    Reason is really slacking on coverage of the slut-shaming/white male privilege/rape culture beat.

  • ||

    Epstein has to know that. He seems to suffer from Reason staffer disease; that is the constant need to sound "reasonable" to his various liberal friends and colleagues.

    Yes, exactly. He has the cosmo disease. Like, actually.

  • Rasilio||

    " that is basic economics that tells you that monopolies never last absent the force of law propping them up or that even when they exist monopolies have an incentive not to raise prices too much or abuse their customers."

    There is actually 1 historical exception to this.

    DeBeers was able to maintain an effective monopoly on the Diamond trade for more than a century without any specific force of law granting them said monopoly and while abusing their customers by inflating the price of diamonds by several multiples what the competitive market price would be (based on the price of 2nd hand diamonds).

    What they did have was some of the very best marketing in history on a luxury good which also served as a very good proxy for cash and while they didn't have legal monopoly protections they did have the benefit of legal indifference to their outright violations of peoples rights including in many cases murder because the offenses took place in 3rd world countries where they could bribe political operatives to ignore them and 1st world governments had no jurisdiction

  • John||

    I would argue that the only reason they have lasted is marketing not the power of monopoly. Things worked out exactly as you would expect. They had a monopoly for a while and the market developed alternatives to the product in the form of artificial diamonds. That ended their monopoly. They have only kept making money because their marketing has managed to convince people that a fake diamond that only a skilled jeweler can tell from a real one, and sometimes not even then, is somehow not worth the same as a real one.

    They are brilliant marketers. But i don't think the success of their marketing disproves the analysis.

  • ||

    It's all marketing. They have cornered the market on diamonds, but there are a shit ton of other precious gems out there. Their marketing has managed to tell a convincing story that none of the others matter and the only way a woman will know she is loved is with a diamond.

  • John||

    Exactly. They don't have a monopoly over jewelry or even "diamonds" if you count manufactured ones. They just have one over mined diamonds and that only translates to profits because of their marketing not the magic powers of a monopoly.

  • Rasilio||

    No their monopoly ended about 20 years ago and the marketing only drove their sales and ability to charge premium prices. The other half of it was maintaining control over the supply, something they were only able to do through murder, intimidation, blackmail, and other activities which are illegal everywhere but they escaped prosecution because the crimes themselves all took place in 3rd world countries where they could bribe their way out of them and 1st world countries lacked jurisdiction.

  • John||

    The economic model can't account for murder and extra judicial means.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What's great about most of the attacks on Paul so far is that they are totally false and easily refuted by simply asking Paul what he thinks.

    He's open to attack for being a limited government fan, because certain government programs and policies aren't consistent with that notion, but those are relatively easily dealt with by explaining why he believes in limited government (with the added oomph of it being the very basis for American government) and explaining that those consequences are a result of him sticking to his principles. Much of it is just imputing false ideas about libertarianism or other people's ideas to him.

    Rand also does well in not embracing the fringes as much as Ron did and lacks the vulnerability to attack on that flank. Sure, he's got wacko fellow travelers, but so does every single other candidate.

    I think his advantage comes as much from being perceived as principled as it does for being in the "Stop the madness" club. After this president, that's something many people are going to crave.

  • Tony||

    Oh no not Rand. Please not Rand. Anybody but Rand. He's the be.... zzzzzz

  • Square||

    I agree - I don't think he's got a real shot this time, but I think he'll go farther than his father ever did, and that's an encouraging trend.

    He has cross-ideological appeal for the simple reason that he comes across as legitimately being interested in doing what's best for the country, and even people on the left seem to recognize that even if they see him as misguided.

    The "freedom of association" thing is going to be the death of him though. People on the left hear that as code for "I want segregation back."

  • Pro Libertate||

    One thing that helps him is that every other potential candidate, except maybe Cruz, has extensive baggage and/or is a electoral failure.

  • Paul.||

    The scary thing is that it's become mainstream DNC policy to simply lionize government for the sake of it.

    The principles of specific policies be damned, don't cut government...any government, because that's racist.

    Therefore Rand, in some ways will seem scarier to the left than Huckabee or any other SoCon who shows open disdain for this dangerous new strain of libertarianism.

    It's funny how the Democrats just smirk at people like Huckabee, but are genuinely scared of people like Rand.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's a really bad strategy, long term, because even lefties can see that government is often (closer to always from the libertarian perspective) corrupt, inefficient, and downright dangerous.

  • Paul.||

    The left lost me when they pointed to corruption as necessary for the proper outcomes.

    Yelling "Huzza!" when Kelo lost her property made my physically ill.

  • Tim||

    Not another Bush.

  • Irish||

    I really despise the Bush's, but someone yesterday pointed out how satisfying the prog tears would be when the New York Times headline read "President Bush Repeals Affordable Care Act."

    It wouldn't make another Bush worth it, but it would be a mitigating factor.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "President Bush Cancels Health Care for 30 Million Americans"

  • The Last American Hero||

    Health insurance equals health care now?

  • ||

    What amazes me is how much people enjoy prognosticating about this shit. FFS, it's 2014.

  • Tony||

    No Republican is going to be able to win the election without being able to talk about economic issues like a grownup. But, as no Republican can win the primary without talking about economic issues like a racist toddler, they're going to have a rough time.

  • sarcasmic||

    By "grownup" I assume you mean a complete ignoramus like yourself, right?

  • WTF||

    In Tony-world, grownup means the only sensible economic policy is more taxes, more spending, forever and ever, Amen.

  • Tony||

    Someone who at least pretends to care about the unemployed and the underpaid in a convincing way and has more to offer than ridiculous bullshit to solve them (more tax cuts for billionaires!).

    But, as I said, the GOP won't allow anyone to stray from the ridiculous bullshit orthodoxy. They've dug their own grave with that.

  • WTF||

    Aaaaand...there you go!

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorter Tony: yes.

  • Tony||

    So they're not going to be required to talk about unemployment and low wages?

  • WTF||

    So they're not going to be required to talk about unemployment and low wages?

    I guess they could talk about how Obama's policies have greatly exacerbated them.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know! Let's outlaw low wages! That's a sure way to fix unemployment!

    Employers will pay people more than they are worth! There will be a hiring frenzy!

    It's magic!

  • WTF||

    That's brilliant! Let's make the minimum wage $50 and hour, that way everyone will make six figures, and everyone will be well-off! And make it illegal to fire people, and illegal to not hire everyone!

    Problem solved, bitchez!

  • Tony||

    So I'm completely right and you're, what, like acknowledging that with examples?

  • WTF||

    So I'm completely right and you're, what, like acknowledging that with examples?

    Oh, come on puppeteers, even 'Tony' couldn't really be that stupid.

  • Loki||

  • John||

    Tony, you shouldn't use terms like "grownup" when you have no idea what they mean. Let me enlighten you. You possess a completely juvinille, emotional and irrational set of views. You and your ilk are the textbook definition of children who can't understand it when your parents tell you they don't own the electric company.

    They irony of you using the term "grownup" is so great it is starting to endanger existence itself. Please stop doing that before we all get swallowed up in the black hole that is your self awareness.

  • Tony||

    Hmm, my beliefs are aligned with mainstream thinking in economics, I believe that science isn't optional, and believe in a mixed economy such as the ones that exist in every country you would possibly want to live in; while you believe in ridiculous fringe bullshit not found on the entire rest of the planet outside of the American rightwing echo chamber, and lacking even a single shred of evidence of its efficacy. What was that about self-awareness?

  • sarcasmic||

    my beliefs are aligned with mainstream thinking in economics

    Shorter Tony: consensus!

  • WTF||

    Oh, 'Tony' you can do better than that! You even forgot to call him a racist! Feeling a little off your game, sport?

  • Tony||

    It was upthread where he used the phrase "Chocolate Nixon," but I thought the racism was pretty self-evident.

  • WTF||

    Holy shit, 'Tony' actually is a parody of himself.

  • John||

    Tony rarely do I play the credential card. But you are so profoundly stupid and impervious to reason you force my hand.

    As someone with a degree in economics, i assure you, the extent to which your views align with mainstream economic thinking is purely by dumb luck. You don't understand the first thing about economics or economic analysis. You couldn't draw a basic supply and demand curve on the back of a napkin much less manipulate or understand the results doing so will produce. You are so profoundly ignorant of it, you can't even get your own side's arguments correct. You don't understand anything about economics. What you understand is your deep seated need to want to believe the various talking points your side gives you. That is it.

    Please, don't tell me how your view aligns with "mainstream economics", your view are so poorly thought out and so emotional and generally irrational, they don't align with much of anything except your personal neurosis and prejudices. Just top it or existence really will get sucked into a black hole of irony.

  • sarcasmic||

    Smart people get their news from The Daily Show!

    Once Tony heard this he started getting his news from The Daily Show!

    That makes Tony smart!

  • Tony||

    The best-informed listen to NPR. I'll give you one guess where the absolute least-informed get their "news." As in, less informed than people who consume no news at all.

  • WTF||

    The best-informed listen to NPR.

    Citation needed

  • waffles||

    Tony's almost right on this one. NPR gives me more news in my short commute than anything I've seen or heard in the more sensational cable news outlets. You have to be discerning and not take their comments at face value, but it is certainly an excellent news source.

  • Rasilio||

    Yes but I find a lot of NPR's news to be useless. I really don't need a 20 minute expose on the lives of Hemaphrodite Ecuadoran farm workers or price fluctuations in sub saharan african pottery.

  • waffles||

    I listen to NPR every single day as my primary news source. You seem to enjoy attacking this phantom idea of the right while being perfectly encapsulated in your own cultish ideas.

  • sarcasmic||

    I listen to NPR in the car a bit. They get a lot of things right. They also get a lot of things very wrong.

  • Tony||

    Who is "they"? Oh god nevermind. Sarc knows all. Even if 99.9% of experts disagree with Sarc, they're wrong and he's right, because he's just that special. Can't put a coherent thought into a string of words to save his life, but as god-king of all knowledge, he needn't bother with such things.

  • Tony||

    No ur stoopid.

  • John||

    I can only call it like it is. If you have so much knowledge of economics, please show it sometime. As it is, you have never once said anything intelligent or in line with any sort of economic analysis I have ever seen.

    What you have is your own irrational fears and prejudices and a set of talking points that confirms all of that and tells you what you want to hear. That is it.

    None of us are as smart as we think we are. But the gap in your case is quite profound. And sadly unlikely to change much since you don't even realize there is a problem.

  • Tony||

    I readily admit to being an amateur in the field of economics, which is why I am compelled to defer to experts. Degree or no degree, you seem to get all of your information from radio talkshow hosts. Am I biased? Probably. But I am smart enough to recognize obviously inane bullshit and a mindless chanting death cult encircling a big heaping pile of it.

    Not that your views are made all that clear. Obviously you are a partisan Republican, but you seem to tuck that away so as to sit at the cool kids' table here, hoping they won't notice what a big fat rightwing torture supporting Bush loving horror of a human being you once were and probably will be again the next time a Republican is in the Oval Office.

  • WTF||

    I am smart enough to recognize obviously inane bullshit

    Citation needed - not supported by evidence

  • John||

    I am informed by radio talk show hosts that I never listen to. And Tony, you are not even an amateur. An amateur would defend something like the minimum wage by saying that the demand curve for labor is such that raising it a small amount will not result in unemployment the way Republicans claim. You don't even understand how raising it could ever result in unemployment.

    You have never given a single cogent argument based in economics on here. Never once. And trust I fully understand the arguments that go your way. You just don't make them because you don't understand anything about economics beyond "someone I agree with told me this".

  • Rasilio||

    " An amateur would defend something like the minimum wage by saying that the demand curve for labor is such that raising it a small amount will not result in unemployment the way Republicans claim. '

    And he'd be right if he did that.

    Here is an amateur economist defense of a minimum wage increase...

    In any given market wages for most low skill jobs will rise above the minimum as the cost of living rises while a small handful of jobs will for whatever reason not rise in the same way. Raising the minimum wage to a level at or below the wages offered by other low skill positions will not in create unemployment it will merely bring those handful of positions into line with general market wages. This is why historically when the minimum wage has been raised there has been no spike in unemployment, because the time duration between increases in the legal minimum were long and the amount of the increase did not exceed the market wage for the majority of unskilled positions.

    For example, in the last minimum wage hike employers like McDonalds and CircleK were offering starting wages above the new minimum even in moderate cost of living areas as a result there was no significant increase in unemployment. Had the increase been significantly higher however unemployment would have increased as demand for labor fell in response to the increase in price.

  • John||

    Yeah Rassillio,

    There are cogent arguments both ways on the minimum wage. But you won't hear any of them from Tony or any Prog. From them you will hear a lot of nonsense talking points about "living wage" and "struggling families" and "social justice" and all of that.

  • Tony||

    So you've ignored every time I've made that precise argument and preferred to insert a strawman stereotype in their place?

  • sarcasmic||

    Rasilio - That does a good job describing the seen, but it misses the unseen. You don't see the people who are never hired in the first place because they can't produce enough value to justify paying them the legislated floor on wages. That is unseen.

  • Rasilio||

    I didn't say it was a correct analysis or that I believed it, I said was a valid amature analysis unlike the tripe Tony spews

  • sarcasmic||

    Fair enough.

  • Rasilio||

    I like how he seems to think there is just 1 "mainstream" view of economics. Even if you argue that Austrians are a fringe belief set you still have to deal with the fact that Keynesians, Chicago School, and those guys from George Mason all have very different views that overlap in some areas and not in others

  • John||

    The only ones who are "mainstream" are the ones who agree with him.

    Beyond that Tony doesn't even make the proper arguments for his side. He is not alone in this in fairness. What passes for "Keynsian" thought among liberal partisans would make Keynes himself vomit. As wrong as Keynes was, there was more to what he had to say than "liquidity trap" and "always spend more".

  • Paul.||

    Hmm, my beliefs are aligned with mainstream thinking in economics, I believe that science isn't optional, and believe in a mixed economy such as the ones that exist in

    Repeating it doesn't make it true. You're so mainstream, Tony! You're so... with it! You're so... now!

  • Jordan||

    Hmm, my beliefs are aligned with mainstream thinking in economics

    I.e. the schools whose members either failed to foresee the housing bubble, or actively cheered it on. Meanwhile, the Austrian crackpots were the ones sounding the alarm.

  • Tony||

    They are always sounding the alarm.

  • Contrarian P||

    Probably because there are pseudo-Keynesians constantly inflating bubbles. We've been living in a Keynes influenced world with a Fed for about a hundred years. If you keep doing the same dumb things that produce collapse for one hundred years, it is pretty evident that there will always be an inflating bubble to warn against. But you would rather trust in the same "mainstream" guys who told us everything was fine in 2007 and continue to advocate the same policies they were advocating then. And this is what passes for you asserting argumentaty superiority.

  • sarcasmic||

    But John, you don't understand!

    Grownups don't allow their teenage children to do whatever they want!

    Government is the grownups and every actor in the economy is a teenager!

    They can't be allowed to do whatever they want!

    They might get rich!

    That's not fair!

  • Lady Bertrum||

    No Democrat is going to be able to win the election without being able to talk about economic issues like a grownup. But, as no Democrat can win the primary without talking about economic issues like a racist toddler, they're going to have a rough time.

  • tarran||

    No Republican is going to be able to win the election without being able to talk about economic issues like a grownup.

    Why? Obama pulled it off... twice!

  • Tony||

    Glib but utterly missing the point--to your own peril I might add.

    I'm sorry, but rightwing and libertarian economics is bullshit on stilts, and the majority of voters know this. It's not Democrats' fault that Republicans are incapable of articulating even remotely convincing economic policy ideas, but it's certainly to their benefit.

  • sarcasmic||

    If everyone's wealth were to double, then that would increase inequality!

    The super rich would be double-super rich, and the poor would now be worse off with twice the wealth they had before because the rich would be so much richer!

  • WTF||

    They actually would be worse off because...ENVY!

  • Tony||

    But that wouldn't happen, and it's not what has been happening. The entire point is that virtually all of the new wealth generated by our economy has been going to the super-rich, while everyone else stagnates.

  • WTF||

    Well, Obama certainly has been taking care of Wall Street and his other cronies like George Soros and Warren Buffet.

  • sarcasmic||

    Wealth and money are not the same thing.

    Poor people are fat. Poor people have cell phones. Poor people have computers with access to the internet. Poor people have flat screen televisions.

    Poor people have more wealth than they did just a few decades ago.

  • tarran||

    But that wouldn't happen, and it's not what has been happening.

    LOL! Tony thinks that the poor still use audio cassettes and rotary phones!

  • sarcasmic||

    LOL! Tony thinks that the poor still use audio cassettes and rotary phones!

    Tony doesn't understand the distinction between wealth and money.

  • Vampire||

    Believing in the fantasy that printing money confers benefits to an economy will surely create more wealth disparity as the early receivers (banks, government, special interests) benefit at the expense of others. That and such a monetary system mismatches assets and liabilities which is a failure in its inception. It also punishes savers, and individuals whom earn low and are on fixed incomes along with all others whom are forced into such a system and media of exchange.

    John Law disproved Keynes before he was born along with the rest of these so called mainstream economists. The only reason these policies can survive are through force and violence. You have politicians whom have standing armies to threaten and use violence against those whom would stand up to defend their natural rights of freedom and liberty.

    Folks only believe in aggression and theft because they can hide behind politicians and advocate such measures without facing consequences. If Tony tried to rob someone's home, he might meet the family dog, or the barrel of a shotgun, the lead that would follow, causing his body to wallow, and his brains to depart from his head making him mighty dead.

    Having a politician do ones bidding to engage in theft shows weakness, and shows how much of a big fat meow one would have to be in order to espouse such nonsense. Eventually, more giant meows vote in even bigger meows, and the system of meows either fails, or is overthrown.

  • waffles||

    You're right. Can you recommend any books to help me become a more educated voter? I'm tired of this childish and selfish libertarian snarkfest and ready to take a seat at the adult's table.

  • Paul.||

    I think this would qualify.

    It's a mainstream, totally with it, totally now method of looking at capital and labor. Groovy.

  • waffles||

    I've already read the communist manifesto. I need something more modern.

  • sarcasmic||

    Economics in One Lesson is pretty good.

  • Paul.||

    Economics in One Lesson is pretty good.

    More rightwing libertarian snarkfest. He said "adult's table". If it ain't Marx, it's the kids' table.

  • waffles||

    Thanks for that.

  • Paul.||

    Uhm, that's as modern as it gets for the left's economic theories.

  • mr simple||

    Obviously you should go to the Master. Or is it Maestro? I forget what he likes to be called.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Only 3 1/2 stars? Fucking Kochs.

  • Vampire||

    Start with the law by Frederic Bastiat. Read Economics in one lesson by Hazlitt. Then you could acquire Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard, and also what has government done to our money along with economic controversies too.

    Don't forget to read Marx, and Keynes. You will surely see how these folks tried to sell their bs by making things overly complicated to where one might say.... Ooh it sounds good lets do it. Sounds good and actual application are two different things. I mentioned John Law. Excellent example as to the failure that is Keynes et al, and how the implementation of currency debauchery, market manipulation, and so on destroys an economy.

  • John||

    Its an insult to Keynes to call Progs like Tony Keynesian. As wrong as he was, Keynes wasn't anywhere near that stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    You will surely see how these folks tried to sell their bs by making things overly complicated to where one might say.... Ooh it sounds good lets do it.

    Yeah. Like when Tony insists that simple explanations are for simple minds. Explanations can only be true if they are so complicated that only an expert can understand them. If they can be understood then they're too simple and can't be correct.

  • Tony||

    What's more likely? That explaining the only partly rational economic behavior of billions of interacting human beings is a simple proposition, or that you need things to be simple in order to comprehend them?

  • Contrarian P||

    How about the interactions of billions are way too complex for central planners to understand and therefore they should quit acting as if they do? That simple enough?

  • Tony||

    Therefore you should be the central planner.

  • Vampire||

    Theft is theft no matter who is doing it. That part is very simple. The only reason you advocate it is because you are shielded from the consequences. One never has to put up their house when advocating a politician create programs and bureaucracies. They never have to sacrifice their savings. That's why they throw other people's money around and keep saying "if we only had more money and the right people would things be better". They keep lying to themselves, while forcing others to fund things against their will.

    How many examples do folks need of the failures of central planning, currency debauchery, price controls and so on? Oh that's right, forget history because its other people's money and we don't have to face consequences. We can even have our children's children pay for it. Woot!.

    If central planning were great, the USSR would have been freeing us from freedom and liberty. Even the central planners had to rely on the market and market prices in order to "set prices" which they still couldn't manage. If central planning were so great, Russians would still be utilizing the state repair man to fix their plumbing. Yet they relied on the market after waiting months for a state repair man. They were still forced to pay for the state which thereby rewarded horrid service.

    If you want to lay down and lick the boot of tyranny do so on your own and be a politicians biotch. Leave free individuals be.

  • PapayaSF||

    Scott Walker/Rand Paul 2016.

    A governor with a real record: cut taxes, took the state from deficit to surplus (much of which will go back to taxpayers), and took on the unions and won, all in a purple state.

    Plus Rand Paul for the youth/libertarian cred (but who is too inexperienced to be President yet).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement