The appeal to the Ozzie and Harriet days is strong and always by someone trying to find out why the economy was so successful and justify their politics. Was it the President? Labor unions? Tax policy? Strong morals?

I bet that the Japanese will be nostalgic over the salarymen days of the 80s, and the Chinese will be fond of the last 10 years, but the searching for a domestic reason for these economic booms ignores the international reality.

After World War 2, Asia and Europe were left in ruins. The colonial empires sinking. Their currencies tattered. Their industries, struggling to recover. Fortress America was not only untouched, but had the benefit of being the world's creditor, and rebuilder.

So, with the competition temporarily out of service, and US Goods and Services in high demand, are we to expect anything but good times for America?

I'll note that Stalinist Russia had superior economic growth compared to every Western nation except the US, does that mean Stalinism is a great economic policy? Since Stalinism couldn't hurt Russia's economic during WW2 recovery, I doubt a 91% marginal rate could either.

Either way, Noah continually demonstrates the lengths to which he will go to justify his interventionist fantasies.

I guess success is no justification for an economic policy then. According to your view, the more success the less proof you have

Apparently you failed to grasp the entire point of the post; success of a policy in an entirely different global economic environment is no guarantee or even a good indicator of the applicability and aptness of the policy going forward, today, with intense competition from all over the globe.

Also, if you look at something like real government revenues as a % of GDP, you will see that they have stayed very nearly constant even through the Ozzie and Harriet days of 90% marginal tax rates on the highest bracket. So the "success" of the policy in increasing government revenues (so that they could redistribute the money, presumably) retrospectively is not even that clear.

So... to summarize: success of a policy in an environment totally different from the current environment is not proof that the policy will be successful in the current environment.

I see absolutely no proof for any alternate theory of economic growth except ones that worked in the past. Of course every time has a different set of circumstances, that is always going to be true.

If high tax rates had nothing to do with prosperity in the pre-Reagan days, then why do you think low tax rates had anything to do with the prosperity some have seen in the post-Reagan era?

"So the "success" of the policy in increasing government revenues (so that they could redistribute the money, presumably) retrospectively is not even that clear."

Um, taxing the richest 91% while taxing the not-so-rich and poor a lot less is redistribution.