The President is a man of principle. The WaPo reports:
Obama said he told House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) that his core goals — lowering health-care costs for businesses and individuals and expanding coverage to the uninsured — remained non-negotiable.
Maybe he should pick “core goals” that are compatible instead of ones that in direct conflict with each other.
Here’s a letter that I just sent to the Washington Post:
Your favorable front-page remembrance of the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha inadvertently testifies to the abysmally low standards to which politicians are held (“John Murtha dies; longtime congressman was master of pork-barrel politics,” Feb. 9). By your own account, Mr. Murtha was the “King of Pork.” He was known for skillfully using Congressional procedures to earmark funds for his district – that is, to prompt Uncle Sam to take money from Americans at large and give it to the relatively small number of Pennsylvanians who elect Mr. Murtha to office.
His justification? “I take care of my district.” Nothing here about spending taxpayer money wisely; nothing about the general welfare; nothing about principles or fiscal responsibility.
If Mr. Murtha on his own had traveled the country picking pockets, robbing banks, and burgling houses, only to bring the booty back to western PA and share it with his friends, he would have been rightly despised as a common criminal. But because Mr. Murtha joined forces with persons having similarly questionable morals, who together pass off their thievery as “lawmaking,” he’s celebrated in your pages – celebrated for doing, save on a grander scale, exactly what is done by common thieves.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Below are two letters that I sent yesterday to the Wall Street Journal. Both are in response to this essay whose author argues that America needs an “industrial policy.” (This essay has many flaws beyond those that I highlight in my letters.)
John Hofmeister builds his case for a U.S. industrial policy on a foundation of falsehoods (“The U.S. Needs an Industrial Policy,” Feb. 8).
The most notable falsehood is Mr. Hofmeister’s assertion that American manufacturing is faltering. In fact, America remains the world’s leading manufacturing country, one whose manufacturing output continues to increase. For example, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the value of U.S. manufacturing output in 2007 was 8 percent higher than it was in 2000, 69 percent higher than it was in 1990, and 184 percent higher than it was in 1980.
And while it’s true that the Chinese will one day produce more manufacturing output than do Americans, that eventuality is hardly surprising given that China is home to one-sixth of the world’s population. Moreover, the fact that manufacturing outputs in newly industrializing nations such as China are growing faster than American output no more means that American manufacturing is in poor health than does the fact that a two-year-old girl is growing faster than her ten-year-old brother mean that the brother is shrinking, is in poor health, or is in need of a ‘height’ policy.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
and
According to John Hofmeister, “Where to stimulate job creation should be as obvious as the cosmetic smile on an elected official’s face: manufacturing. Go where we’ve been” (“The U.S. Needs an Industrial Policy,” Feb. 8).
If Mr. Hofmeister’s logic is correct, his recommendation is too modest, for there’s an industry that once employed a far larger percentage of Americans than were ever employed in manufacturing: agriculture.
So if it’s wise to “go where we’ve been,” Uncle Sam should implement policies that create lots of agricultural jobs. He can do so by outlawing farm machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, and refrigeration, as well as all packing materials invented after, say, 1900. Just imagine the millions of jobs restored to that glorious industry that once employed nearly nine in every ten workers!
Now if Mr. Hofmeister nevertheless insists that Uncle Sam create more jobs in manufacturing, similar steps will be necessary. For example, all post-WWII – aw heck, all post-WWI – advances in automation and inventory control can be banned from use, along with all use of modern computer technologies. The resulting plunge in productivity will mean that many more workers will be required to produce the same amount of output that a single worker produces today. And with all those workers shifted back to manufacturing, America would have fewer service-sector workers – folks such as pharmaceutical researchers, highly specialized physicians, and software designers – dragging down measured average wages.
What a recipe for prosperity that is!
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
My friend and former colleague (from my time at Clemson University) Bruce Yandle has two new essays very much worth reading.
“Lost Trust: The Real Cause of the Financial Meltdown”
&
“Producing Jobs: Thoughts on Obama’s Plan for Small Businesses“
EconLog’s Arnold Kling asks a question that would fuel befuddled, and perhaps even angry, stares at the typical Manhattan or Beverly Hills cocktail party — but it’s a great question that, in fact, is not rhetorical:
Is it really the case that people want the government to create jobs? I have seen many progressives and pundits claim that people are angry about jobs, but I have not seen any people clamoring for the government to create jobs. (Emphais added – DBx)
Below is the abstract of a paper that looks very interesting. Its title is “Proposition 13 and The California Fiscal Shell Game“; its authors are Colin McCubbins and Mathew McCubbins:
We study the effects of California’s Tax and Expenditure Limitations, especially Proposition 13. We find that Proposition 13 was indeed effective at reducing both ad valorem property taxes per capita and total state and local taxes per capita, at least in the short run. We further argue that there have been unintended secondary effects that have resulted in an increased tax burden, undermining the aims of Proposition 13. To circumvent the limits imposed by Proposition 13, the state has drastically increased nonguaranteed debt, has privatized the public fisc, and has devolved the authority to lay and collect taxes and to spend the proceeds so gained. The devolution of authority has been among the swiftest growing aspects of government finance in California, to a far greater extent than in other states. Lastly, we argue that the new tax and spending authorities that have been created to circumvent Proposition 13 have led to a reduction in government transparency and accountability and pose an increasing threat to our democracy.
Here. An excerpt:
He has been narrow, not broad. He has been partial, not post-partisan. He has been ideological, not pragmatic. No number of “eloquent” speeches can alter these facts. This is why his major initiatives have failed, why his net job approval has dropped 50 points in 12 months, and why he is substantially weaker now than he was a year ago.
But that’s just the punch line. The intro is just as good.
Here:
Hayek contre Keynes – VOSTfr
Uploaded by Liberte_Cherie. – Click for more funny videos.
For the last year or so I’ve been thinking about trade in a new way, a mix of Smith and Ricardo, an idea I first heard from Jim Buchanan and enhanced by conversations with Don Boudreaux and Mike Munger. In this week’s EconTalk, I lay out the idea. Hope you like it.
Recent Episodes
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
