Posted on 07/02/2011 12:41:07 PM PDT by jazusamo
|
|
No one is more of a master of political talking points than President Barack Obama. Remember "shovel-ready projects"? These were construction projects where the shovels were supposed to start digging the moment the government gave them the "stimulus" money. Two years later, Obama can joke about the fact that the shovels were not as ready as he thought. In reality, the shovels were never ready. It can take forever to get all the environmental approvals to build anything in today's political and legal climate. If Obama didn't know that, his advisers surely did. He can treat it as a joke today but it is no joke for those who are saddled with the debts produced by his runaway spending in the name of "shovel-ready projects." Nor is it a joke to the unemployed, who remain unemployed despite all the "stimulus" spending. The talk about the many "green jobs" created by the government is likewise no joke. Since the government creates no wealth, it can only transfer the wealth required to hire people. Even if the government creates a million jobs, that is not a net increase in jobs, when the money that pays for those jobs is taken from the private sector, which loses that much ability to create private jobs. Back in the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration hired more young men in the Civilian Conservation Corps than there were in the U.S. Army. But that never brought unemployment down into single digits at any point during that entire decade. As late as the spring of 1939, the unemployment rate was 20 percent. Government-created jobs did not mean a net increase in jobs then or now. But this is only mundane reality. What makes a great political talking point is government coming to the rescue of the unemployed by creating jobs. That talking point helps politicians get reelected, even if it does nothing for the economy in general or for the unemployment rate. Among the biggest triumphs of talking points over reality are political discussions of rent control and gun control. Rent control supposedly rescues helpless tenants from the high rents charged by "greedy" landlords at least in political rhetoric. But the two cities which have the oldest and strongest rent control laws in the country also have the highest rents New York and San Francisco. Yet that plain reality has not made a dent in the thinking, or lack of thinking, of those who support rent control. Nor are they at all interested in other realities about rent control, whether in these two cities or in other cities around the world. These realities include housing shortages and a reduced supply of maintenance and other auxiliary services, such as heat and hot water. Other forms of price control likewise lead to shortages, and have for literally thousands of years. But such plain realities do not affect the heady social vision conjured up by talking points. Far from being discouraged by such realities, those who believe in price control for housing often think price control for medicines and medical care is a great idea too. We need not speculate as to what effects price controls can have on medicines and medical care because there are already shortages of both in countries where a government-controlled medical system includes price controls. The talking points about gun control are as far removed from reality as the talking points about rent control. But on this issue, at least, the advocates cite some highly selective statistics to go along with their rhetoric. Gun control advocates often point out countries like Britain that have stronger gun control laws than ours and lower murder rates. But they totally ignore countries that have stronger gun control laws than ours and higher murder rates than ours. One such country is right on our border Mexico. But there are others farther away, such as Brazil and Russia. There are also countries with higher rates of gun ownership than in the United States Switzerland and Israel, for example that have much lower murder rates than ours. But none of this has the slightest effect on the talking points of gun control zealots. |
Not to defend FDR, but at least we got some dams and parks and stuff. Obama pi$$ed away a trillion dollars and we got nothing to show for it.
Thanks for both Dr. Sowell posts jaz. Good reading always.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is fantastic and would not have been built by private industry. Public works projects can have benefits lasting decades.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is fantastic and would not have been built by private industry. Public works projects can have benefits lasting decades.
In the Republican administration that will succeed Obama in 2013, Dr. Thomas Sowell, should he agree to serve, (he’s 81) should be a valued economic advisor to the next president. To not use this man’s wisdom and common sense in economic matters would be folly.
I agree it represents a coarsening of the culture and of public discourse.
NO cheers, on account of either the culture OR the wasted money.
g_w
I share your opinion about the “fantastic” part but I must otherwise respectfully disagree.
I live a little over an hour from the Blue Ridge Parkway, and I love driving on it. But it’s totally a scenic bypass, and would be used by almost nobody who was trying to get from point A to point B in the fastest possible way.
I don’t see why I have the right to demand that tax money be forcibly extracted from someone in Paducah to build and maintain a road that serves on==no benefit other than allowing nice views for local drivers. If the views are so important to me, I should be willing to pay for it.
Anyway, it’s currently $15 to get on the parkway in the Shenandoah National Park, and the traffic can be pretty heavy anyway. I bet some private company could have financed that road if they could get that kind of money in return.
I couldn’t agree more.
Should Sarah Palin be our next president it wouldn’t surprise me if Dr. Sowell is approached.
A while back there was mention in a Palin article of her and Todd Palin discussing a point made by Sowell and it sounded like they read his articles.
Granted, but the men employed on that project were out of work again when it was finished, even if the highway has lasted all these years. In private business, profits fuel jobs as businesses expand and require more blue and white collar labor. Those jobs are usually not temporary and can lead to more than a few months or years employment. The Empire State building was built by private businessmen and was erected from the ground up in just over 13 months! It cost about 41 million (540 million in 2011 dollars) and came in under budget. Although the Depression skews the employment statistics for that era, the Empire State building survives today, 80 years later.
The point is that while taxpayer-financed jobs intended to give the unemployed work and income is temporary (just as unemployment 'insurance' benefits are) jobs in private industry are far more desirable, fuel business expansion and the availability of more jobs and their products can also have long lasting benefits for many.
I've been putting together my Dream Cabinet for the next president, and I've got him down for Secretary of the Treasury.
I wouldn't be surprised, I do know that Michelle Bachman is a big fan of his also.
However, outside of Bachman, and implicitly Palin, I haven't seen any evidence that any of the other GOP candidates read him (though they should).
Mark Twain, in Christian Science
US humorist, novelist, short story author, & wit (1835 - 1910)
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.
why would that deceitful megalomaniac want gun control?
/s
You note Disneyland/Disney World were made by private industry. I don’t see how one can say that the blue ridge parkway both (1) should have been built and (2) wouldn’t be built by private industry.
If there is a need for it, Private industry will build it. Government builds white elephants, like the odd castles of Mad King Ludwig.
thanks fer the back-to-back homers jaz...happiest and safe 4th to ya...
>> Gun control advocates often point out countries like Britain that have stronger gun control laws than ours and lower murder rates.
But the control freaks will dig no deeper than the superficial statistics. To do so would unleash a Pandora’s Box full of Liberal failures.
Is it Switzerland that requires an armed citizenry?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.