Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, has a piece extolling Obamanomics in the Wall Street Journal.
He has taken a break from calling for discrimination against white male construction workers to repeat the stupid canards against de-regulation:
Energy markets were deregulated and we wound up with Enron. Food and drug safety has been neglected, resulting in contaminated products that have endangered consumers and threatened whole industries. Financial markets were deregulated and we now have a global meltdown. Obamanomics, by contrast, views appropriate regulation as an essential precondition for sustainable growth.First, Mr Secretary, neglecting standards is not the same thing as deregulation.
Second, the financial markets did not melt down because of deregulation, but because of mandates to make unsustainable, "sub-prime" loans; mandates put in place by the Donkeys in Congress, and your old boss.
Third, apparently "appropriate regulation" is going to include telling someone not only the minimum they can pay employees, but the maximum.
Finally, we have this little closing argument:
Under Reaganomics, government was the problem. It can still be a problem. But a central tenet of Obamanomics is that there are even bigger problems out there which cannot be solved without government. By building the economy from the bottom up, enhancing public investment, and instituting reasonable regulation, Obamanomics marks a reversal of the economic philosophy that has dominated America since 1981.
Building the economy from the bottom up. In other words, the workers control the means of production! What a clever, original idea.
Or maybe not.