Category Archives: Economics

Our “Federal Family”

…is floundering:

It is a wonder, this faith-based (and often campus-based) conviction that the government that brought us the ethanol program can be trusted to precisely execute wise policies that will render the world predictable and progressive.

For two years, there has been one constant: As events have refuted the Obama administration’s certitudes, the administration has retained its insufferable knowingness. It knew that the stimulus would hold unemployment below 8 percent. Oops. Unemployment has been at least 9 percent in 26 of the 30 months since the stimulus was passed. Michael Boskin of Stanford says that, even if one charitably accepts the administration’s self-serving estimate of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus, each job cost $280,000 — five times America’s median pay.

And research by Garett Jones and Daniel M. Rothschild of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center indicates that just 42.1 percent of workers hired by entities receiving stimulus funds were unemployed at the time. More (47.3 percent) were poached from other organizations, and 10.6 percent came directly from school or outside the labor force.

Obama’s administration, which is largely innocent of business experience, knew its experts would be wizards at investing taxpayers’ dollars. Oops.

“Floundering” is too kind a word, I think. Can I be emancipated from this “family,” please?

Solyndra

Some interesting notes from yesterday’s hearings:

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R., Calif.) had perhaps the most compelling questions for the witnesses (even though they ducked and dodged them all). For instance, why on earth did the administration approve a $535 million loan guarantee for to fund the construction of a new manufacturing facility in California — a state with significant financial problems, 12 percent unemployment, an abundant supply of empty warehouses (a result of businesses “fleeing” the state, Bilbray said), and some of the strictest regulations and permitting requirements in the country?

This was just “absurd,” he said, and raises questions about the competence of the agencies who ultimately approved the loan. Bilbray outlined the litany of permits and regulations a new facility in California would have to comply with, especially since the building site was located on “virgin farm land” and fell within a “non-attainment” zone as classified by the EPA. Because the resulting costs would be quite high, why build a whole new facility, as opposed to renting or retrofitting an existing facility? Or open a new plant in another state? Bilbray asked. Fair questions, but neither witness claimed to know anything about that aspect of the loan decision.

The country’s in the very best of hands.

“Fast and Furious” is this administration’s Watergate, except it’s much worse. Solyndra is this administration’s Enron, except it’s much worse. But they won’t be treated that way by most of the press.

[Update a few minutes later]

Actually, I should give props to ABC, who has been covering Solyndra pretty aggressively. They are reporting that Treasury is opening up an investigation. I wonder how sincere it will be? I would think that Geithner would like to avoid being the fall guy here.

[Update early afternoon]

Maybe Chu will be the fall guy. I wouldn’t miss him. Of course, there’s almost no one in this administration that I would miss, unless I thought they’d be replaced by someone worse. But I think it’s going to be a lot harder for the president to get his leftist nominees through now than it was in early 2009.

[Late afternoon update]

“Questions will be asked.”

What fools these people are.

The Fake War

…on unemployment. Even Robert Reich thinks the president isn’t serious:

Reich is still confused, though:

If the president was never really serious about getting Republican votes in the first place–if his jobs bill and the tax increase on the wealthy were always going to be part of his 2012 election year pitch–why didn’t he make his jobs bill big enough to do the job?

Let’s accept for the sake of argument the creationist premise that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent government can create all the jobs it wants simply by borrowing and spending enough money. Let’s also assume Reich’s premise that “enough,” in this case, is some figure considerably in excess of $447 billion.

Why didn’t Obama ask for enough? That seems obvious. If the answer is “no,” and the point of asking the question is to elicit a negative response, then the practical difference between what you get if you ask for $447 billion and, say, $5 trillion is not $4.553 trillion but zero. If Obama is asking for the money only for appearance’ sake, as Reich concedes he is, then it’s more important that $447 billion appears more reasonable than $5 trillion.

Either way, Megan McArdle wishes “that Obama hadn’t wasted my Thursday evening, and that of 31 million other Americans, listening to a jobs plan that was only designed to produce one job–a second term for Barack Obama.” Most of those viewers–those of us who write about this stuff for a living being obvious exceptions–didn’t actually have to watch the speech, so we’re not able to work up much sympathy for those who didn’t have the good sense to change the channel or go out and live a little.

But let’s take this by the numbers. Obama’s speech lasted about 42 minutes. Multiply that by 31 million viewers and, say, $20 an hour, and you end up with the man-hour equivalent of about $434 million. It’s a shameful waste, but much less of one than if Stimulus Jr. actually became law.

No danger of that, fortunately. The neo-Keynesians have finally completely destroyed whatever credibility they ever had.

America Needs A Control Group

Frank J. has some thoughts on people who are anti-science:

despite the obvious importance of science, one group of people does everything in pure defiance of scientific methods: politicians.

What do politicians do when they think they have a great idea? They just go and implement it. It’s like someone thinking he’s got a cure for cancer and immediately injecting it into everyone he can. That’s a madman, not a scientist. You always have to at least try out your idea on monkeys to make sure it doesn’t kill them.

Were farm subsidies first tried on monkeys? Social Security? Bank bailouts? No, the unscientific politicians went straight to trying all their ideas on humans, and now we have a bunch of bankrupt people instead of harmless bankrupt monkeys.

But the problem with testing political ideas on monkeys is that forcing them to go billions into debt would violate animal-cruelty laws. The only ones we’re allowed to do that to are people.

There was an old joke in the Soviet Union. The teacher is lecturing the class on Karl Marx, and one of the kids raises his hand and says, “Teacher, is it true that Marx was a great scientist?” The teacher answered that, yes, indeed, he was the greatest scientist who had ever lived. The kid thinks for a while, and then says, “If he was such a great scientist, why didn’t he try this crap on rats first?”

“An Umitigated Litany Of Failure”

Obama’s scorecard.

Obama's Scorecard

As many commentators have noted, there is an aroma of fear hovering about the White House these days: the stale, acrid scent of panic. Some of us have known all along that Obama, the community organizer miraculously elevated to the U.S. Senate for a few months before he erected some Greek columns and talked his way into the U.S. Presidency, some of us, I say, have known all along that he hadn’t a clue. Now it seems that even he is getting uncomfortable inklings. In the beginning Obama emitted an aura of that some identified as an aura of confidence; really, it was an aura of entitlement — along with what the President himself a while back identified as “bluff.” Are you the sort of person who likes empirical reminders?

I don’t think he is.

And why is the press uninterested in Obama’s Lincoln gaffe? Because it’s Obama, and not Mike Huckabee. Or Sarah Palin.

What If?

Thoughts on Obama’s latest deficit-increasing blather from Jim Geraghty:

We’re a $14 trillion economy that makes everything from timber to jumbo jets to firearms to smart-phone apps to Hollywood movies to every food product under the sun. The notion that some grab bag of tax credits and federal grants is going to kick-start a hiring binge to put 14 million Americans back to work or that the economy is one tax credit for hiring veterans away from recovery is laughable.

The recession we’ve endured for the past three years is far from normal, and yet we keep getting the normal Keynesian responses. I realize I’m about to offer blasphemies and shockers on par with Rick Perry’s Ponzi-scheme comparison, but what if Obama was wrong last night, and a big issue is that some of the people of this country do not, in fact, work hard to meet their responsibilities? What if decades of a lousy education system have left us with a workforce that has too many members with no really useful skills for a globalized economy? What if way too many college students majored in liberal arts and are entering the workforce looking for jobs that will never exist? What if the massive housing bubble got Americans to condition themselves to work in an economy that’s never coming back? (How many realtors are unemployed right now?) What if we have good workers who can’t move to take new jobs because they’re underwater on their mortgages and can’t sell their house?

That’s just crazy talk. (No link because it’s from his morning email.)

And on a related note, is it the end, after decades, of the New Deal Order? I hope so, but it went on so long that the transition to sanity is going to be very painful, and perhaps very ugly, as we saw with the union thuggery in Washington state that is so far not only going completely unpunished, but its author sat in a box with the First Lady at the president’s speech.