The Obama “recovery”: Less unemployment, but more dependence
This is not the way the world is supposed to work-even if you are hopelessly infatuated with Keynesianism. Cheerleaders for Keynesianism, of course, take it as a tenet of their faith that the government should be spending aggressively during economic downturns. (To their way of thinking, the social welfare state should be one of the main vehicles for such expenditures: not only to provide a safety net, but to stimulate upswing by making up for insufficient macroeconomic demand.)
Yet to the finely calibrated Keynesian mind, government spending is supposed to be counter-cyclical: meaning that as things get better, the hand of the state is supposed to recede from economic life…
In the President’s telling, our vast public entitlement system is really only there to redress “risk” (and the need caused by risk).
But if this were true, we would expect the claims upon our nation’s entitlement system to diminish as the level of economic “risk” (and need) lessen, wouldn’t we?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
In truth, we have more or less the same high unemployment, plus the increased dependence.
DKCZ on February 20, 2013 at 5:49 PM
A lower unemployment rate does not necessarily mean “less unemployment.” And, in fact does not mean that in the Obama economy.
besser tot als rot on February 20, 2013 at 5:49 PM
So, Obama is smart!/
OldEnglish on February 20, 2013 at 5:52 PM
All is proceeding as planned. Cloward-Pivan Strategy ftw!
Outlander on February 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Proving that liberals are even more dangerous than Keynesians.
antipc on February 20, 2013 at 5:58 PM
Unemployment is not declining.
Ditkaca on February 20, 2013 at 5:59 PM
If the unemployment rate was calculated the same way as when a Republican could be blamed for it the rate would be closer to 15%
Ditkaca on February 20, 2013 at 6:01 PM
The author made no mention of the millions upon million upon millions of Americans that have completely dropped out of the workforce in the Obama “Recovery” and are no longer counted.
The actual unemployment rate stands around 15-16%.
Why are Leftists OK with this? What’s their deal?
visions on February 20, 2013 at 6:02 PM
Ummmm were is the wonderful Recovery the Dear Liar promised us?
Galt2009 on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Less unemployment? Really?
We’re looking at the same high unemployment we had five years ago.
catmman on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Bwwahahahahahaaha
CW on February 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Glad Nick has returned to the world of the conscious. Or had his vision restored.
BKeyser on February 20, 2013 at 6:41 PM
Didn’t need to read any further than this. When one starts out with a faulty premise (less unemployment), what follows is suspect as well.
Mitoch55 on February 20, 2013 at 6:41 PM
LESS UNEMPLOYMENT!!!!!?????
.
What frickin’ bearded Spock universe do these ivory tower, cement head,Obama fluffers occupy?
.
Get out into the street ordinary US citizens live on ,meatball brain,and get a lesson in reality.
Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM