A JOBLESS RECOVERY is the equivalent of a housewarming for the homeless. You have got to know that this sophistic term is a political construct, not an economic one. The term is meant to coat the entrenched, systemic effects of endemic, employment-killing government policies with a patina of scholarly respectability.
Typically, establishment economists will waffle about “structural changes—permanent shifts in the distribution of workers throughout the economy”—causing job losses, but will gleefully tout GDP growth, or some or other highly manipulable indicator, as evidence that the the jobless are fussing needlessly.
And here we return to square one: I am not sure that a vigorous recovery is even possible given government funded and unfunded debt amounting to upwards of $60 trillion, and counting. I don’t know that a country can surface from under all that. At the very least, a natural shift must take place—and be evident—from a credit-fueled, consumption-based economy, to one founded on savings, investment and production.
But, what do you know, the GDP statistic is consumption-driven: it measures the kind of economic Brownian motion of which less is required. “This statistic is constructed in accordance with the view that what drives an economy is not the production of wealth but rather its consumption,” confirms (Austrian) economist Frank Shostak. “What matters here is demand for final goods and services. Since consumer outlays are the largest part of overall demand, it is commonly held that consumer demand sets in motion economic growth.”
The prevailing “theory” of John Maynard Keynes “is not economics, but a statist political theory. Keynes’s political creed guaranteed a hand-in-glove relationship between the state and its stooge economists. Most of what Keynes advocated entails giving the state enormous … powers.”
Essential in this scheme of things is semantic obscurantism. “A Jobless Recovery” is exactly that.
So when you hear that“employers cut 467,000 jobs in June, far more than expected, and the jobless rate hit a 26-year high of 9.5 percent”; and that “wages shrank to their lowest in nearly a year,” consider these vital indicators of a moribund economy.
“The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate this Saturday—has been mocked out of meaning.
To be fair to the liberal establishment, ordinary Americans are not entirely blameless. For most, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration doesn’t feature. In fact, contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.
Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in “Liberty and Freedom.” And President (of the Continental Congress) John Hancock urged that the “people be universally informed.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the mind of a McCain, an Obama, or the collective mentality of the liberal establishment, “American” in any meaningful way.” …
“The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate this Saturday—has been mocked out of meaning.
To be fair to the liberal establishment, ordinary Americans are not entirely blameless. For most, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration doesn’t feature. In fact, contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.
Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in “Liberty and Freedom.” And President (of the Continental Congress) John Hancock urged that the “people be universally informed.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the mind of a McCain, an Obama, or the collective mentality of the liberal establishment, “American” in any meaningful way.” …
The so-called town halls set up for the propagandist-in-chief to peddle his policies are as alarming as the infomercials the networks avail him of. All the more so given that no forum airs any serious, substantive questions. There is something both mindless and eerie about the monolithic, collectivist nature of Obama’s “National Discussion on Health Care Reform.” Say after me, all together now, etc.
The guy is also flooding the Internet with his “message.” Is this propaganda? Heavens no. The toxic, and intoxicated journalistic profession would say this is but a savvy use of the new technology. And isn’t it all so very groovy and cool?
In last week’s “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists,” I explained one fundamental difference between the private market and the “public plan”: The latter “is a subsidized plan in which prices are artificially fixed below market level. As sure as night follows day, overconsumption and shortages always ensue. If he is as smart as he thinks he is, even the smarmy president must knows that, to compete with the state, private plans and insurers cannot offer services below their real cost for long.
Private practitioners who sell their wares at a loss—are not ‘too big to fail,’ and have yet to slip between the sheets with the derriere doctor-in-chief—will be waylaid. Conversely, because it enjoys a monopoly over force, the government is immune to bankruptcy. It covers its shortfalls by direct and indirect theft: by taxing the people, or flooding the country’s financial arteries with toxic fiat currency.
Other than to indenture doctors, the overall effect of forcing professionals to provide healthcare below market prices will be to decrease the supply and quality of providers and products.
My colleague Vox Day adds the following important points:
It would not be logical if the government were competing on anything remotely resembling a level playing field. However, that’s not the case with government, which has several advantages even when it doesn’t make use of its ability to assert a monopolistic position. First, a government agency has no need to make money. Subsidized by the taxpayers and public debt, it can run at a loss for decades. It can therefore undercut private competition by any amount it chooses, thus creating demand for its services even if they are inferior. Second, a government agency is allowed to exclude itself from regulations that apply to private competitors, giving it further competitive advantages that don’t necessarily show up on the balance sheets. For example, it is highly unlikely that one could successfully sue an employee at a government health care provider for malpractice. The Supreme Court upheld the Feres Doctrine in 1950, which prevents veterans from suing any Veterans Administration physician for malpractice. So, among other things, federal health care providers would not need to carry insurance due to their so-called sovereign immunity.
Obama and logic: never the twain shall meet.
An aside: My language-loving ears were stung when I heard the man, hailed for his literary skills, say in today’s portion of the week, “her and her husband …” It’s “she and her husband,” you doofus. And then, “One of the many options we have are….” It’s “one of the many options … IS.” Hint: One is singular. I’ll remind you that the fact the Obama speaks better English than Bush means nothing at all.
Update I: Chip Reid of CBS News and Helen Thomas skewer Obama’s cackling hyena of a press secretary, Robert Gibbs, over Obama’s town hall-by-invitation. Reid explains to the Mouth what a townhall is—a free for all. Both the public and the questions for the ostensible “National Discussion on Health Care Reform” were carefully preselected and screened. My sense that this was a convention of automatons was based on the fact that indeed it was. Thomas, a historical relic herself, says that this White House is the first to conduct itself in this manner: “The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness …” Imagine that: Thomas, who regularly gave Bush hell, might come to miss The Shrub, as we progress down the road to serfdom.
Update II (July 2): What Thomas told CNS News (via the Glenn Beck newsletter):
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said. “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”
Asks Glenn (or his proxy): Does this mean Obama’s honeymoon with the press is coming to an end?
I answer (not that he’d know it): don’t count on it. The “parrot press” has a lot riding on that ass.
