RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Obama administration and some economists argue that the recovery since the Great Recession ended in 2009 has been unusually weak because of the recession’s severity and the fact that it was accompanied by a major financial crisis. Yet in a recent study of economic downturns in the U.S. and elsewhere since 1870, economist Tao Jin and I found that historically the opposite has been true. Empirically, the growth rate during a recovery relates positively to the magnitude of decline during the downturn.

In our paper, “Rare Events and Long-Run Risks,” we examined macroeconomic disasters in 42 countries, featuring 185 contractions in GDP per capita of 10% or more. These contractions are dominated by wartime devastation such as World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45) and financial crises such as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many are global events, some are for individual or a few countries.

On average, during a recovery, an economy recoups about half the GDP lost during the downturn. The recovery is typically quick, with an average duration around two years. For example, a 4% decline in per capita GDP during a contraction predicts subsequent recovery of 2%, implying 1% per year higher growth than normal during the recovery. Hence, the growth rate of U.S. per capita GDP from 2009 to 2011 should have been around 3% per year, rather than the 1.5% that materialized.
Arguing that the recovery has been weak because the downturn was severe or coincided with a major financial crisis conflicts with the evidence, which shows that a larger decline predicts a stronger recovery. Moreover, many of the biggest downturns featured financial crises. For example, the U.S. per capita GDP growth rate from 1933-40 was 6.5% per year, the highest of any peacetime interval of several years, despite the 1937 recession. This strong recovery followed the cumulative decline in the level of per capita GDP by around 29% from 1929-33 during the Great Depression.

Given the lack of recovery in GDP, a surprising aspect of the post-2009 period is the strong employment growth. The growth rate of total nonfarm payrolls averaged 1.7% a year from February 2010 to July 2016, despite the drop in the labor-force participation rate. The post-2009 period is not a jobless recovery; it is a job-filled non-recovery. Similarly, the drop in the unemployment rate—from 10% in October 2009 to 4.9% in July 2016—has been impressive, though overstated because of the decrease in labor-force participation. CONTINUE AT SITE

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Anne Pasternak, the public-art impresario and museum neophyte who one year ago became director of the Brooklyn Museum, quickly set about unraveling much of what her predecessor, Arnold Lehman, had done over his 18-year tenure. Her concept was commendable—to simplify and clarify installations that many visitors had regarded as chaotic, confusing and cluttered. But the results—particularly as seen in the sweeping overhaul of the encyclopedic museum’s distinguished permanent collection of American art in a mere seven months— suggest that Ms. Pasternak’s ambitions may have exceeded her know-how.

Brought to fruition by assistant curator Connie Choi, a month before Brooklyn’s new full curator of American art, Kimberly Orcutt, arrived on the scene, the reinstallation displays 35% fewer objects than before, eliminating the practice of double-hanging works (one above the other). This means that you no longer have to strain to see works that were hung too high, but it also means that certain artists are no longer shown in depth: For example, Marsden Hartley, an American Modernist painter whose styles ranged from realism to abstraction, was formerly represented by four paintings; now there’s only one.

More problematically, the new installation is sabotaged by political polemics: It seems perversely fixated on what’s shameful in our country’s past. While it’s legitimate to raise uncomfortable issues, the relentlessness of the negative critique makes the installation sometimes seem less a celebration of American culture and achievements than a recitation of our nation’s faults.

The introductory wall text fires a warning shot: “Some of the objects . . . raise difficult, complex issues, since many works were made for and collected by racially and economically privileged segments of society.” In our “Occupy” era, which takes aim at the disparities between the 1% and the 99%, “privilege” attracts potshots.

In the opening section, “The Americas’ First Peoples,” overseen by curator Nancy Rosoff, we are reminded of the “massacre of millions” that haunts our nation’s past. The gold, ceramics and carvings of Native Americans from North, Central and South America take their rightful place at the beginning of this chronological story of American art, with other American Indian objects interspersed throughout the galleries. Latin American artists are included under the rubric of “American Art” and integrated with their U.S. contemporaries.

There was a time when the Democratic Party provided a voice for American workers. The Democrats of the 20th century advocated for higher wages and better working conditions and opportunities for upward mobility for blue-collar workers.

This was the concept behind the “American Dream” — the notion that anyone who got an education and worked hard and, perhaps, benefited from a bit of luck could write the next great American success story.

Today the Democratic Party, still politically backed by labor unions, has become the main driver behind providing millions of illegal aliens with lawful status.

The Democratic Party viewed itself as the counterpoint to the Republican Party — which, for the most part, was aligned with business owners who predominantly wanted cheaper labor and fewer regulations.

Labor laws and immigration laws were enacted to protect American workers from dangerous working conditions and from unfair competition that foreign workers might provide. In fact, prior to World War II, the enforcement and administration of the immigration laws were the responsibility of the Department of Labor. The authority for the enforcement of immigration laws only shifted to the Justice Department during World War II — when it became apparent that foreign spies and saboteurs could pose a national security threat.

There was balance to America’s politics. Both sides had understandable goals and desires, and through compromise America and Americans benefited and the middle class grew. Wages increased and along with those increasing middle-class wages came more disposable income that enabled large numbers of Americans to live the American Dream.

On Saturday evening, a bomb packed with metal shrapnel exploded in the Manhattan neighborhood of Chelsea, injuring 29 people, eleven hours after an explosion in Seaside Park, N.J., along the route of a planned Marine Corps charity run. Both bombings — and at least two other attempts, one in Manhattan and one in Elizabeth, N.J. — appear to be the work of Ahmad Khan Rahami, a 28-year-old naturalized citizen from Afghanistan.

The sequence of events, culminating in Rahami’s capture on Monday morning, has coincided with liberal attempts to make the weekend’s goings-on anything other than what they obviously are: Islamic terrorism. On Saturday night, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio called the bombing “an intentional act,” making his own contribution to the roll of Obama-era euphemisms (cf. “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence”), while on Monday, news that Rahami may not have acted alone prompted a CNN terrorism expert (we use that word advisedly) to propose that “two or three lone wolves may have gotten together.”

We do not yet know much about Ahmad Rahami, but we know a great deal about Islamic terrorism in the United States, on account of a growing catalogue of horrors — Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, etc. — and it’s almost certain that Rahami was hoping to stake out a place on that list: According to law enforcement, he traveled to Afghanistan multiple times in recent years, and acquaintances told the New York Times that he had changed dramatically following a trip four years ago. That Rahami failed to do more damage was largely a matter of incompetence and luck. (It’s worth keeping in mind, too, that this is not the first time that New York City has dodged a deadly bombing. In 2010, a car bomb planted in Times Square by Faisal Shahzad, a 30-year-old Pakistan native, ignited but failed to explode.)

Liberals refuse to acknowledge that the United States faces a deadly threat grounded in a distinct ideology. Terrorism is not an expression of frustration at a lack of economic opportunity; Ahmad Rahami was not “acting out” because he couldn’t score a position at the GAP. Terrorism is violence intended to subvert the existing political order, and, in the case of people such as Rahami, to replace it with the political framework required by supremacist Islam. Acknowledging this fact does not require condemning Islam as such; it simply requires acknowledging that there is a strain of Islam, with broad appeal today, that opposes the American way of life.

Our policymaking should be designed around this recognition. Instead, liberal leaders have been hampering counterterror efforts. The Obama administration, incapable of uttering the phrase “Islamic terror,” has drawn down our intelligence efforts at home and abroad, while smearing police departments across the country as racist. Meanwhile, in New York City, Mayor de Blasio caved to the demands of Islamist activists earlier this year and ordered the NYPD to stop using a report that helped officers identify individuals who might be considering terrorism. Far from encouraging profiling of Muslims, the report helped investigators make the distinctions that are crucial to preempting acts of terror.

Islamic terrorism is caused by Muslim migration.

The wave of Muslim refugee terror began with a bomb targeting a U.S. Marine charity run in New Jersey. By evening a pressure cooker full of shrapnel has exploded outside a Manhattan building for the blind. An hour later, a rampaging Muslim terrorist began stabbing people inside a Macy’s, asking them if they were Muslim and shouting the name of “Allah,” the genocidal Islamic deity of mass murder.

And that was one Saturday, two Muslim refugees and a wave of national terror 1,200 miles apart.

What did Elizabeth, New Jersey and St. Cloud, Minnesota have in common?

New Jersey has the second largest Muslim population in the country. This isn’t the first time it was used as a staging ground for Muslim terror.

11 of the 19 September 11 hijackers hung out in Paterson (known colloquially as Paterstine). Head toward Jersey City and you can see where Muslim enemies of this country stood on rooftops and cheered the attacks on September 11. It’s also where the World Trade Center bombing mastermind and the Blind Sheikh who provided religious guidance for a proposed wave of Islamic terror operated.

Go south and in Elizabeth you can pass the First American Fried Chicken joint where the Rahami clan made life miserable for their American neighbors before one of their spawn began his bombing spree.

New Jersey is a map of Muslim terror plots because of its huge Muslim population.

Ahmad Khan Rahami came to America as the son of an Afghan refugee. He stabbed a man two years ago. His family was a local nuisance who cried “Islamophobia” at the least provocation. His brother was a Jihadi sympathizer and may have fled the country after assaulting a police officer. By the time Ahmad was done, he had wounded a police officer and 29 other people. If his plot had succeeded, he might have pulled off the largest Muslim terror atrocity in the country since September 11.

On the tail of the firestorm that Hillary Clinton ignited by describing supporters of Donald Trump as belonging in her “basket of deplorables” because they support immigration law enforcement, purportedly out of xenophobia and other irrational fears, Jimmy Carter went public with his outrageous proclamations that there is a “resurgence of racism”: As CBS News reported,

Carter said some white Americans stay quiet when they see discrimination or segregation, fearful of losing a “privileged” position in society. He said that amounts to acceptance of “discrimination and animosity and hatred and division.”

Carter, a lifelong Baptist, often spoke about his faith during his political career. Now 91, he continues to teach Sunday school several times a month at a church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia.

Carter said he wanted the event to stay nonpolitical, but described “some degree of embarrassment” about the ongoing presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He said Americans’ multiple races, ethnicities and religions form “a beautiful mosaic” and said the country has been “resilient” following other periods of deep division, including the Civil War.

It was, as you will see, Jimmy Carter who intentionally twisted the public perception about immigration law enforcement for political purposes in ways that most Americans likely don’t know.

The term “alien” has all but been stricken from the vernacular when applied to foreigners who are present in the United States. Some “journalists” and politicians actually become agitated when the term “illegal alien” is used to describe aliens who are illegally present in the United States, equating that terminology with “hate speech.”