Category Archives: Media Criticism

Our Innumerate Secretary Of Education

Apparently, Arne Duncan has been ignorantly channeling Paul Krugman. Derbyshire (and Iowahawk) take him to school.

[Update a few minutes later]

Speaking of the crazy economics professor, Ed Driscoll reviews his latest antics.

I should add (as I have before) that it’s important to understand just how and why WW II ended the Depression. The conventional wisdom from the Keynesians is that all of the federal spending grew the economy, but that didn’t really happen — wars are in fact ruinous for economies, even for those economies that win them. Much of the production that occurred during the war was consumed in the war, or scrapped afterward, while there was rationing of food and goods on the home front. The real reason that we recovered was that once the war was on, FDR was too distracted by it to continue to tinker with the economy, as he had during the thirties, keeping it continually sick (much like a medieval doctor continuing to bleed a patient). He had to get arms production up and could no longer afford all of his random pet nostrums. Beyond that, unemployment plunged because so many men were drafted, taking them off the rolls, and then the women were put to work in the factories.

Had Roosevelt lived, after the war, he probably would have returned to his damaging tinkering, and in fact Truman wanted to, but the new Republican Congress that came in in 1946 wouldn’t let him, and so finally, after a decade and a half of disastrous Democrat policies, the economy finally recovered, and even boomed. But it doesn’t mean that the solution is a war, or even the “moral equivalent” of one. It means that the solution is sane government. I hope that we’re less than a year and a half from that.

[Update a while later]

The leftists can’t make up their minds about it.

Obama’s “Bad Luck” On Jobs

He made it, and continues to make it himself.

In the last Congress we saw the passage of two of the biggest expansions in federal regulatory power in decades (and possibly ever). Obama’s health care law and the Dodd-Frank financial legislation were each about 2,000 pages of broad grants of authority and discretion to regulators, the implications of which are just now beginning to be felt.

On top of that we’ve seen an astonishing train wreck of new energy regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including an aggressive effort to discover elements of the failed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation inside the forty-year-old Clean Air Act. The EPA is now contemplating its most aggressively anti-jobs regulation: an out-of-cycle re-proposal of smog rules that would ratchet down levels so far beyond what is necessary for public health that nearly the whole country would be judged “out of attainment” and over seven millions jobs would be lost. The EPA is also attempting to impose an absurd 54.5 mile-per-gallon fuel economy standard that will take any car worth driving off the market.

Not to be outdone, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is intent on rewarding the union bosses with elements of the failed card check legislation, including an effort to allow unions to impose ambush elections – before workers have an opportunity to understand the costs associated with forming a union. Most chilling from the NLRB is the effort of their acting, not confirmed, general counsel Lafe Solomon to dictate to Boeing (and, by precedent, all potential employers) where they can locate facilities that employ thousands of people.

It’s worth reprising the old Heinlein quote: “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’”

[Update a while later]

You don’t say. The Democrats’ “green jobs” plan is a bust:

The skepticism from Waters and Cleaver comes after a Washington Post-ABC poll, published July 26, found serious erosion in liberal Democratic support for Obama’s jobs policies. “The number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent,” the Post reported.

That skepticism is based on real-world evidence. “In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned,” says the New York Times in a new report from California. “President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.”

For example, the paper reports that California received $186 million in the stimulus bill for the purpose of weatherizing homes. So far, the state has spent about half of the money and created the equivalent of 538 jobs. “The weatherization program was initially delayed for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry,” the Times reports. “Even after that issue was resolved, the program never really caught on as homeowners balked at the upfront costs.”

Unexpectedly!

But of course, the president being the president, he doubles down on the idiocy:

Nevertheless, President Obama continues to focus much of his economic efforts on green jobs. When he travels the country to highlight various industries, he often chooses renewable energy firms. And when he talks to supporters about his work to grow the economy, it’s often in terms of green jobs.

What was that old saying about the definition of insanity?

[Update a few minutes later]

Atlas is sort of shrugging:

Every president lets slip a smear now and then. The key is that there should be little consistency or frequency in his targeting. But with Obama there is both monotony and predictability. He clearly does not like private businesses — except the super wealthy who are liberal and share his refined tastes and politics and have enough millions in “unneeded income” that they figure they will either die before or weather through our transition to European democratic socialism.

Of course, one Huey Long–like “fat cat,” an occasional adolescent “millionaires and billionaires,” a once-in-a-while juvenile “corporate jet owners,” a few 1960s-like “spread the wealth” or “redistributive change” slips, a single petulant “unneeded income,” or a sole pop-philosophizing “at some point you’ve made enough money,” or even on occasion the old socialist boilerplate “those who make over $250,000 should pay their fair share” in isolation are tolerable. But string them together and even the tire store owner and pharmaceutical rep are aroused from their 70-hour weeks, and start to conclude, “Hmmm, this guy doesn’t like me or what I do, and I better make the necessary adjustments.” And, believe me, they are making the necessary adjustments.

They’re waiting for a new president, and Congress. Less than a year and a half to go.

[Update a while later]

The president’s priorities:

It will not be lost on many Americans that the president found time before going on vacation to issue an order regarding racial bean-counting, but deferred issuing a plan to increase the overall number of jobs until sometime in September. The question is whether this is more a reflection of the administration’s priorities or of its competencies.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say both.

[Mid-morning update]

Regulators chasing farmers off the farms. More bad luck, I guess.

SpaceX At The LA Times

There’s a front-page story today. As I noted in a comment there, I found the final sentence interesting:

The rocket has just two successful test launches.

While true, there are other ways to phrase it. They could have left out the “just,” which implies that the number is both low, and bad. There is also an implication that there have been unsuccessful launches. It would have been just as accurate, and more favorable to the company, to write, “The rocket has had two successful launches, with no failures.” They could have even pointed out that the capsule performed successfully on its first and only flight.