by Don Boudreaux on September 5, 2010
in Politics
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says that Americans are now throwing a “temper tantrum.” The ungrateful imps are impatient: “They want somebody to make it all better. Now.”
Memo to Mr. Robinson: the popular uprising against Pres. Obama and his “Progressive” comrades has little to do with childish impatience.
Tea Partiers aren’t upset because Obamacare hasn’t worked its miracles yet; they’re upset because they believe that Obamacare will create inordinately burdensome costs and other ills in the future. Stimulus opponents aren’t up-in-arms because the economy isn’t “all better” already; they’re up-in-arms because they worry about the high debt burden and inflation that today’s stimulus makes more likely tomorrow. Conservatives and libertarians don’t object to the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts so much because these actions cost money now; they object chiefly because they know that these actions will encourage large firms to behave more recklessly in the future.
Correctly or not, many persons’ hostilities to Pres. Obama’s agenda spring from their sense that ill-tidings loom over the horizon rather than from a juvenile disillusionment that Americans are not yet feasting on the sweet candies promised by Team Obama-Pelosi.
(HT Greg Andreassian)
Here’s a letter to the Washington Post (corrected):
Bruce Katz and Jonathan Rothwell usefully expose dangerous myths about U.S. exports (“Five myths about U.S. exports,” Sept. 5). But these authors themselves swallow a larger myth about exports – namely, the claim that we Americans “should increase our exports” because “Our relatively low export levels represent a lost economic opportunity.”
Suppose that in 2010 a firm in Buffalo produces $1 million worth of baseballs for sale to consumers in Toledo. If in 2011 this firm produces identical balls but sells them instead to consumers in Toronto, U.S. exports would rise but there would be no corresponding gain in economic opportunity.
If Messrs. Katz and Rothwell have in mind raising U.S. exports only by American firms selling more to foreigners without selling less to fellow Americans, their claim still is mistaken – for two reasons. First, increased “economic opportunity” can come from American producers selling more to Americans no less than from selling more to foreigners. Consumers’ nationalities are economically irrelevant.
Second, any such increased foreign demand for U.S. exports could well result from foreigners reducing their investments in America in order to spend more on U.S.-made goods and services. This increased demand for U.S. exports, although it would reduce America’s trade deficit, would not necessarily create more “opportunity” than that which is destroyed by the reduced investments.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Here’s a letter to the Boston Globe:
Blithely asserting that “Cuba’s government operates successfully on a different set of principles than those of the United States,” Klaus Kleinschmidt offers that “One could suspect that the US government fears that ordinary people traveling there might find themselves comparing the two societies and wondering who’s better off” (Letters, Sept. 3).
Persons tempted to take seriously Mr. Kleinschmidt’s suggestion that life in the U.S. is worse than life in Cuba should ask themselves this two-part question: from which country do ordinary people continue to risk their lives to escape? And to which country do these desperate people flee?
To see the absurdity of Mr. Kleinschmidt’s letter, simply observe the direction of the dinghies.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
My friend Alan Dlugash adds the following in an e-mail to me (pasted below with Alan’s kind permission):
As if you needed more proof, I am a regular visitor to Cuba – throughout the country, all is the same – the people are truly poor (having only a rice and beans subsistence, housing that includes only walling off new areas when people get married or have children, and being able to purchase only the shoddiest of locally made merchandise). The only exceptions are people in high government or those receiving dollars from contact with tourists or from remittances from the US. Medical care is very poor, with some able doctors but ridiculously long waits and little medical equipment, supplies, or medications.
UPDATE: My friend Mark Steckbeck writes the following to me in an e-mail:
If a U.S. resident attempted to flee to Cuba, the Cuban government would welcome him or her with open arms – what a political statement that would make. In the other direction not only is water an obstacle, but the U.S. Coast Guard and immigration officials sit in wait trying to catch Cubans coming to the U.S. and send them back.
Here’s a letter to the Washington Post:
Arguing that “In God We Trust” should be displayed more prominently on the dollar coin, Michael Bridges says “The motto is something we should be proud of” (Letters, Sept. 2). Perhaps. But the history of that motto raises serious questions about just what sovereign Americans are being encouraged to trust: God or government?
As Benn Steil and Manuel Hinds point out on page 70 of their remarkable book Money, Markets & Sovereignty, “to create a mystique premium on their coins, whose face value significantly exceeded their intrinsic value, rulers typically adopted religious symbols in their stamps. The less gold, the more God. In fact, ‘In God We Trust’ was added to American dollar bills only after their gold backing was dropped in 1862.”
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
In this excerpt from my interview with historian David Kennedy, I asked him to discuss the standard view that Hoover’s ideology tied his hands and kept him from attacking the Great Depression while Roosevelt was an economic wizard. In his answer, Kennedy discusses how activist Hoover was, though ineffective.
Here, I ask Kennedy why Hoover has the reputation as a do-nothing guy, despite his attempts at intervention. Kennedy’s answer is revealing.
In 1979, Sony introduced the Walkman, the first portable music player. It weighed 14 ounces and cost $200. It could play a cassette that could hold about 90 minutes of music. It was a little bigger than a cassette. It was pretty ugly.
A new nano from Apple was announced yesterday. It weighs less than an ounce. The 8GB model is $149. It holds about 60 hours of music. It is smaller than a matchbook. It is very beautiful.
So it is cheaper (even without accounting for inflation), weighs 1/15th as much, and holds about 40 times more music of higher quality. I can’t get over how beautiful it is.
by Russ Roberts on September 2, 2010
in Innovation
Here is a five minute excerpt from my interview with David Kennedy. He compares Hoover and Roosevelt’s economic policies in response to the Great Depression. His answer surprised me.
And please let me know in the comments if I should do these shorter excerpts more often.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
