Read anything by Ruy Teixeira and it’s obvious that he should be smart.  His wetware includes a blazingly-fast motherboard and throughput, with vast data bases and information storage.  Combine this with his (leftist) programming and Ruy spews out nonsensical garbage ten times faster than your average progressive.

It’s even possible that, unlike Obama, Mr. Teixeira has America’s best interests at heart.  (Barack’s concern is for American government.  Those hopes are not synonymous.)

Mr. Teixeira lists various interest groups in Obama’s coalition and claims that what’s best for all is economic growth.  As “radical environmentalists” weren’t mentioned he is, of course, absolutely right.  He also didn’t note that growth is likewise good for “bitter clingers”, homeschoolers, and Republicans.  Of course to him that’s probably a bug, not a feature.

Ruy thinks that it’s “likely” that Obama will get re-elected.  But…

But what can hold this coalition together…beyond this election?  …simple answer: economic growth and plenty of it.

Got that?  The goal is to keep Democrats in power.  Economic growth is merely the means to his end.  Still, since it’s a vested interest, we know that Ruy really does want things to get better.

The bad news is that Obama doesn’t yet seem inclined to focus on achieving it.

Again, Ruy mistakenly believes that Obama cares about economic growth.  Obama cares about government growth.  This doesn’t stop “Tex” from offering plenty of advice, of course.  Is it any good?  First, let’s benchmark his analytical skills:

Romney’s clueless rich guy persona…

Again:  this guy claims that economic growth is essential.  Then he looks at a Harvard JD/MBA and sees “clueless”.  He gazes at a man who gave away an inheritance to succeed on his own; who became vastly wealthy despite keeping only 40% of his income after taxes and charity; who succeeded in all manner of business environments; who took a corrupt and dysfunctional Winter Olympics and turned a legal profit on it, one of the most jaw-dropping feats in managerial history.  Ruy Teixeira, economic growth guru, proclaims this guy “clueless”.

The rest of his analysis is equally brilliant.

There is no lack of policy ideas that could produce such growth.

Indeed, we have some ideas here.  Yours?

…an emphasis on access to education, especially college,

Because Starbucks can never have too many Humanities PhDs waiting tables.

…the development of new economic sectors like biotechnology and clean energy that can provide high skill, high wage jobs…

…followed by partisan bankruptcy and unemployment.

…investment in infrastructure and research…

…even when they are non-existent.

…that can support rising economic sectors…

…while necessarily hobbling the successful ones.

…and the transition to a green economy.

Because green is always healthy.

CONTENT WARNING!  LOOK AWAY IF SQUEAMISH! 

THIS IS WHAT A “GREEN” ECONOMY WILL LOOK LIKE!!!!

END YUCKY MATERIAL

(Shudder.)  Where were we?  Oh yes, “Ruy’s Rules to Robust Recovery”.  Didn’t they seem…familiar?

Indeed…the much-maligned stimulus bill was intended as a down payment on these ideas.

Oh!  Well then.  What can one say except…Mission Accomplished!

There is good economic evidence…

Take Ruy’s word for it, since he gives you no choice.

…that such structural economic improvements could substantially improve the long-term growth rate…

Thus the success of the Stimulus Act.

…as well as bring down high levels of inequality that are undercutting the benefits of growth for most Americans.

Whoa whoa whoa, Tex!  Economic growth increases inequality.  This is how you equalize things.  You can have a growing economy or Soviet-style equality.  Never both.

Now Ruy goes medieval on our assets.

Sustained strong economic growth is something the country has been lacking for quite some time.  Consider the growth rate in the quarter century after World War II. From 1947 to 1973, real GDP grew by 4 percent per year, with real family income rising nearly 3 percent per year. This is the growth spurt that really created the American mass middle class.

We need to imitate 1947-1973 economic policy, got it.

But after the early 1970’s growth slowed significantly, down to a 2.7 percent rate between 1973 and 2011, with of course a massive spike in inequality.

Again, note the glitch in Mr. Teixeira’s programming*.  All else being equal, economic growth increases inequality.  Always.  It’s so simple even economists should be able to understand.  The poorest always have nothing.  In a growing economy, individual fortunes will rise and fall but the richest will gradually increase in wealth.  Thus the gap always widens.

Imagine a galaxy-spanning economy with almost magical heights of technology and wealth.  The richest people will own star systems.  The poorest?  They’ll have the same:  nothing.  It is impossible to get both economic equality and growth because not everybody can keep up with the Joneses, and some of the ones that could don’t even try.  Thus the only way to even things out is to drag the Joneses (and everyone else) to the very bottom.

Anyway, I see his point that modern economic policy is worse than the post-WWII one.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t.

            And since 2000, growth has been particularly slow, just 1.6 percent per year

Mr. Teixeira showed that if you want growth the absolute last thing to do is repeat 21^st Century policy.  Then…one paragraph later…he called for an item-by-item encore of the 2009 “Stimulus” Act and didn’t even blink.

A widely-praised “intellectual” publishes a widely-read essay and only one person on earth notices that it is utterly self-invaliding rubbish. Can you see why I’m so tired of interacting with others?  For the record:  Emerson didn’t say, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”  He said, “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

(*  Obviously inequality did worsen through the Sixties and Seventies.  It wasn’t from slowed economic growth.  That’s pure idiocy.  It was caused by Democratic destruction of the black urban family via mandatory welfare, affirmative action, cultivation of victimhood, and dozens of other enfeebling approaches.)