An economist friend (and Bush supporter) writes to make the point I implied, but didn't state, in the post on regulation below:
The articles you cite are inadvertently a counter to the right-wing
criticism of Bush's economic policies. His most severe anti-market move
was the tariff on imported steel, which was highly porous legislation
that did not even continue, and which may have served as a low-cost sop
to protectionists in certain states. In contrast, on the more important
and less easily observable work of micro-efficiencies -- the Bush
skepticism of regulation, which is in fact the default position of the
entire economic profession -- looks to be exactly the sort of thing free
marketeers would want. Would people like Tyler Cowen or Dan Drezener
really prefer a Kerry administration which was Clintonesque on visible
free trade and biased in favor of activist legislation away from the
public eye?
After all it's the day to day accretion of unexamined regulations that
probably do as much if not more damage to the long run efficiency of the
economy -- than the bigger-splash macro policies on the deficit and trade.
On economic policy, I always care most about regulation because it's capable of creating huge distortions, is largely unscrutinized by the public, and is almost impossible to get rid of once it's in place. Here's another reason to watch Arnold's veto pen.
|
