Thanks Mike, now I know what a jeremiad is.  After looking it up , I realized I’m good at it and didn’t even know it.  Maybe not as good as you.

I agree with your historical analysis.  Larry Lick was a close friend, but couldn’t interest me in city politics at the time – but he was dead on.

I disagree with your conclusion.  Central planning is the problem, not the solution.  Doesn’t matter whether it is Shaun Grodin, Bruce Brown, Jerry Bouchard, Tim Geitner or any other economic guru, self-proclaimed or publically proclaimed, - the process just doesn’t work.  But to accept that it doesn’t work would make a politicians life very dull, and much less rewarding.  Once the premise is accepted that governments have the right to take wealth and or to control the everyday decisions of people, there is no limit to where their imaginations will wander.  Our “nanny state” is the natural result of accepting that government leaders know what is best for us, and can be more effective in running our lives than what we are capable of.  Even if that were true, I would reserve the right to screw up my own life.

I am a student of the Austrian school of economics.  There are other schools of economics – Marxism, Keynesianism, Classical, Mathematical, even, I’ve heard, voodoo. Why aren’t there different schools of mathematics and physics?  Why isn’t there a school of medicine, in which blood letting, is still an accepted practice?  The followers of a school of mathematics, in which 2+2= 5, would develop a whole different branch of engineering, and their buildings and bridges would be based on that premise.  The answer, of course, is that as we disprove a theory, we discard it.  Blood letting is no longer an accepted medical procedure, and we no longer believe the earth is the center of the universe, etc.   WE THROW OUT THOSE IDEAS, NOT CONSISTENT WITH REALITY, EXCEPT IN THE STUDY OF ECONOMICS.  Adam Smith was an opponent of mercantilism over two hundred years ago and, improved on the work of Thomas Aquinas, one of the first economists and student of natural law, and Menger, Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises improved on Adam Smith.   But their work is ignored by politicians practicing economics.  The politicians, crony capitalists, socialists (did I use that word?), have agendas that are not in harmony with economic truth.  The point is that there are solid economic reasons why central planning misallocates resources, and results in wealth destruction.  The natural pricing system is the most efficient method of allocating scarce resources – a rather boring but essential fact that can not be ignored if economic growth is desired.  But Shaun Grodin, Bruce Brown, Scott Beedon,  David Haynes along with all the other market meddlers would not be in high demand, so we continue to practice bad economics.  These are not bad people, I assume that they are genuine in the belief that they are doing good. But they are not.

Does this qualify as a jeremiad?

Jer