Jeb Bush Shows That not Only Greek Politicians Make Promises They Can't Keep

     A lot of people argued after the no vote in Greece that Tripas had showed once again that you can't trust him-after all he and Varoufakis had promised a deal within 24 hours of a no vote. This didn't happen to understate things just a little.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/not-exactly-bretton-woods-eu-summit.html

    To be sure, Sumner is right that it's tough to know what Tripas' real desire is anymore-or anyone in the EU for that matter. Is Germany just 'playing tough' to get maximum concessions from Greece or do they really want a Grexit?

    Again, Grexit may still be the best case scenario though there is widely varying opinion on this.You have the 'structuralists' like Morgan Warstler who think that all that matters are Greece doing structural reforms-basically the EU just wants this first and then they will stop giving the Greeks such a hard time.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/first-me-and-sumner-then-greg-and.html

    Cullen Roche argues that Greece may have been better off leaving the euro in 2011 but now its too late.

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/cullen-roche-on-greece.html

    However, this new post by Nick Rowe seems to me to make a good case that maybe Grexit is the best option for the Greeks even now. Introducing the Drachma would be a boon.

    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2015/07/euro-moamoe-plus-drachma-moe.html#more

   Anyway,  as Sumner says, there seems to be nested games being played in Greece and the EU so who can say what anyone there really wants anymore.

  http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29910

  In criticizing Tripas though for making unrealistic promises what do these same folks make of Jeb Bush's promises of 4% GDP growth? I mean we don't know if he's lying-he may just be totally ignorant; but then his economic advisers are failing him-but this is an absurd promise.

  Interestingly such irresponsible promises are very common in GOP Presidential campaigns. Donald Trump has made very big promises on creating record jobs-by mostly, apparently, tamping down on immigration from Mexioc. In 2012 Newt Gingrich promises $2.50 gas.

  Too bad he wasn't elected as gas hit $2,50 somehow under President Obama. If Newt had won he could have wrongly taken credit for that.

  Now Jeb is talking about Americans working more hours. Krugman weighs in:

  "Maybe we were unfair to Mitt Romney; Jeb “people should work longer hours” Bush is making him look like a model of empathy for the less fortunate. All the obvious points apply: longer hours would mean more GDP (if and when the economy ever gets back to full employment), but not necessarily better lives, especially if the increase in GDP doesn’t trickle down."

   "But I think it’s also important to understand where this is coming from. Partly it’s Bush trying to defend his foolish 4 percent growth claim; but it’s also, I’m almost certain, coming out of the “nation of takers” dogma that completely dominates America’s right wing."

   "At my adventure in Las Vegas, one of the questions posed by the moderator was, if I remember it correctly, “What would you do about America’s growing underclass living off welfare?” When I said that the premise was wrong, that this isn’t actually happening, there was general incredulity — this is part of what the right knows is happening. When Jeb Bush — who is a known admirer of Charles Murray — talks about more hours, he’s probably thinking largely about getting the bums on welfare out there working."

   http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/jeb-and-the-nation-of-takers/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

    This is always mission impossible-get American conservatives to explain where all this welfare is going on. Are they counting Social Security and Medicare welfare? This would make Ayn Rand herself a welfare queen.

    As Krugman points out, TANF is a tiny program since 'welfare reform.'

    In the sense that Krugman qualifies-longer hours mean more GDP-Jeb's comments here seem innocuous. However, one big story in the economy has been with American companies downsizing and then having those who are left on increasing their workload-often while not paying them overtime-which is what Obama's new executive order on overtime is meant to put a stop to.

   In addition, though, you can argue that in the long term, the goal isn't necessarily more hours for everyone. To be sure there is a real problem with underemployment but what we see over time is that historically the tendency has been to reduce hours while increasing wages.

   Of course, it's basic neoclassical economics that 'leisure' is also of value. Indeed, conservatives say you can't tax the rich as that will cut labor hours forgetting that most rich people aren't in the laboring class.

   http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/tim-worstell-thinks-nick-hanauer-is.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

   In principle the goal should be more income, more growth, with less hours. For instance with the coming of the 40 hour work week-bitterly opposed by conservatives in the 1930s-did we see a precipitous drop in growth? The opposite is the case.

   Otherwise we would have debates that we go back to Dickens era child labor like Marx chronicled in grisly detail in his Capital.

   The point is that increasing aggregate hours is not the best way to increase aggregate standards of living. Again, if you think of leisure of being just another part of wealth then if people have to work more hours to get by they are losing leisure and so not any richer,