Category Archives: Debt

Updated: Obama’s Shocked: More Jobs ‘Lost’

Barack Obama, Conspiracy, Debt, Economy, Regulation, Taxation

STATISM AND STUPIDITY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE. “Employers chopped 85,000 jobs last month, and difficulty finding work helped chase more than half a million people out of the job market,” reports the Hartford Courant.

To Obama, this is genuinely surprising. Didn’t he do everything possible to avert such a scenario? Didn’t he do everything right?

Sure, if you consider stupendous spending, the creation of faux industries—“the average cost of alleged new green jobs will be $135,000 per job”—and the taking over of failed ones.

With “the $780 billion stimulus plan,” the prez purports to have saved 1 million jobs, but by Kudlow’s calculations, each cost “roughly $200,000 per job.”

Mr. Midas touch has closed “down federal lands for oil and gas drilling,” opened up more EPA departments for capping-and-trading, is leading a government takeover of health care, and this is barely the beginning of BO’s transformation of “the government’s relation to the private economy.”

Because he is a dyed-in-the-wool statist, BO cannot conceive that by dolling out unemployment benefits, and state aid; launching government jobs programs—all of which necessitate the seizure of private wealth through taxing, borrowing, and printing paper—he is taking a wrecking ball to the job market, and the private economy.

Update (Jan. 9): I think BO is genuinely surprised. Contra Glenn Beck, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I believe in the banality of evil. BO believes in the Keynesian “remedied.” I think he’s scratching his head.

Here’s the mundane truth conspiracies obscure (from the post “On Conspiracy Theories”):

The premise for imputing conspiracies to garden variety government evils is this: government generally does what is good for us (NOT), so when it strays, we must look beyond the facts—for something far more sinister, as if government’s natural venality and quest for power were not enough to explain events. For example, why would one need to search for the “real reason” for an unjust, unscrupulous war, unless one believed government would never prosecute an unjust war. History belies that delusion.
Conspiracy is not congruent with a view of government as fundamentally antagonistic to the individual and to civil society, a position I hold.

Updated: Obama's Shocked: More Jobs 'Lost'

Barack Obama, Conspiracy, Debt, Regulation, Taxation

STATISM AND STUPIDITY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE. “Employers chopped 85,000 jobs last month, and difficulty finding work helped chase more than half a million people out of the job market,” reports the Hartford Courant.

To Obama, this is genuinely surprising. Didn’t he do everything possible to avert such a scenario? Didn’t he do everything right?

Sure, if you consider stupendous spending, the creation of faux industries—“the average cost of alleged new green jobs will be $135,000 per job”—and the taking over of failed ones.

With “the $780 billion stimulus plan,” the prez purports to have saved 1 million jobs, but by Kudlow’s calculations, each cost “roughly $200,000 per job.”

Mr. Midas touch has closed “down federal lands for oil and gas drilling,” opened up more EPA departments for capping-and-trading, is leading a government takeover of health care, and this is barely the beginning of BO’s transformation of “the government’s relation to the private economy.”

Because he is a dyed-in-the-wool statist, BO cannot conceive that by dolling out unemployment benefits, and state aid; launching government jobs programs—all of which necessitate the seizure of private wealth through taxing, borrowing, and printing paper—he is taking a wrecking ball to the job market, and the private economy.

Update (Jan. 9): I think BO is genuinely surprised. Contra Glenn Beck, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I believe in the banality of evil. BO believes in the Keynesian “remedied.” I think he’s scratching his head.

Here’s the mundane truth conspiracies obscure (from the post “On Conspiracy Theories”):

The premise for imputing conspiracies to garden variety government evils is this: government generally does what is good for us (NOT), so when it strays, we must look beyond the facts—for something far more sinister, as if government’s natural venality and quest for power were not enough to explain events. For example, why would one need to search for the “real reason” for an unjust, unscrupulous war, unless one believed government would never prosecute an unjust war. History belies that delusion.
Conspiracy is not congruent with a view of government as fundamentally antagonistic to the individual and to civil society, a position I hold.

Is Ben Having A 'Meltdown'?

Debt, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Political Economy

Or is Mr. Bernanke reading Meltdown? “The Federal Reserve Chairman’s views on asset bubbles,” writes The WSJ, are slowly changing.”

“Earlier this decade, when Mr. Bernanke was a Fed governor, he and other central bank officials said financial bubbles weren’t something the Fed could identify or pre-empt effectively. Its focus was on keeping inflation and unemployment low. [And how well that has been achieved.] Its bubble strategy was to mop up after a bubble burst with lower interest rates to prevent damage to the broader economy.”

In a speech on Sunday at the American Economic Association’s annual meeting, BB repeated the shibboleth about the need for “better regulation” as the first line of defense against future crises. But he also conceded to the need “to ‘remain open’ to using the blunt tool of higher interest rates to avert or pop future asset bubbles … particularly if other approaches aren’t working.”

Why is raising interest rates considered a “blunt tool,” keeping them artificially low is not?

Is Ben Having A ‘Meltdown’?

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Political Economy

Or is Mr. Bernanke reading Meltdown? “The Federal Reserve Chairman’s views on asset bubbles,” writes The WSJ, are slowly changing.”

“Earlier this decade, when Mr. Bernanke was a Fed governor, he and other central bank officials said financial bubbles weren’t something the Fed could identify or pre-empt effectively. Its focus was on keeping inflation and unemployment low. [And how well that has been achieved.] Its bubble strategy was to mop up after a bubble burst with lower interest rates to prevent damage to the broader economy.”

In a speech on Sunday at the American Economic Association’s annual meeting, BB repeated the shibboleth about the need for “better regulation” as the first line of defense against future crises. But he also conceded to the need “to ‘remain open’ to using the blunt tool of higher interest rates to avert or pop future asset bubbles … particularly if other approaches aren’t working.”

Why is raising interest rates considered a “blunt tool,” keeping them artificially low is not?