Do Democrats Understand Economics?

The latest from His Holiness The Bringer of Healthcare:

President Obama unveiled plans Thursday to double U.S. exports over the next five years in hopes of spurring job growth, an ambitious goal that may rekindle the battle over free-trade policy.

The president acknowledged the formidable barriers to his goal: doubts in Congress over new free-trade agreements, misaligned currencies that make Chinese products cheaper on global markets, and continued weakness in global demand, all problems that could dwarf efforts to promote U.S. products and services abroad.

But, Obama said in a speech, “in a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative.”

Just a couple of things – don’t American’s have to be working in order to produce exports?  It’s not like 10% of the labor force is out of work and not producing anything.  And don’t other countries have to buy the stuff we export?  And doesn’t your party contain the biggest bunch of anti-free traders in the world?

So how is this wondrous and magical export increase to be created?  Glad you asked:

Designed to deliver on a pledge he made in his State of the Union speech, Obama’s plan includes $2 billion in new export financing through the Export-Import Bank, which helps U.S. companies finance overseas sales; establishment of a Cabinet group to promote U.S. goods and services abroad; and an expanded role for the Nixon-era President’s Export Council, to be chaired by W. James McNerney, Boeing’s president and chief executive. Restrictions on the overseas sale of some high-end technology goods may also be eased.

So $2 billion more that we don’t have and will have to borrow from the rest of the world, two new bureaucratic idiocies, and allowing China to buy more of our technology to improve their weapons.  I’m sure the money will get spent, that’s the one thing that Democrats are good at doing.  But do you think any of this will produce more than a handful of jobs?  Well, His Highness thinks he will get:

If successful, the president said, the program would create 2 million jobs. Experts said the viability of that figure would depend on the type of exports that are expanded.

2 million new jobs?  Even the Washington Post has to immediately undercut the idiocy of that statement.  This is supposed to be the smartest guy in the room.  The Harvard Professor.  But aside from drooling idiots, could you find anyone in America who thinks that this mess of new spending is going to come anywhere close to producing 2 million jobs?

I realize that we have now had a couple of years of Obama and his flunkies lying to us, but this still hits a level of DUUUUH that I find astonishing.

Intellectual Bubbles

Just a wonderful post over at the blog One Cosmos today:

We all know that there are economic bubbles that inevitably burst and punish investors for their irrational exuberance and willing suspension of disbelief about the laws of economics.

To cite the most recent dramatic example, the climate change industry has been revealed to be a classic intellectual bubble. As with economic bubbles, its worth as a scientific theory became absurdly overvalued, to the point that more and more outrageous claims were required to prop it up. People were willing to pay the price, so long as the illusion of value was maintained. But since the bubble has burst, intellectuals who invested heavily in it are left holding penny stocks that even then no one will buy, for they are essentially worthless.

The whole thing is very much worth your time, but I must include the ending:

Thus, just as investors should have been skeptical of the extraordinary financial claims of a Bernie Madoff, people should have been far more skeptical of the extraordinary scientific claims of the warmists before investing in the theory. It might have passed as a decent intellectual hedge fund, but certainly not one’s core investment.

President Obama is another example of a classic bubble. Why did otherwise sane people invest so much in this cipher? Indeed, why did they ignore all of the evidence that he was absurdly overvalued?

Private Competition with the Public

The Denver Depressing Newspaper had a column by Ed Quillan about the recent Town Hall held here in Colorado by King Barry I and a comment that was made by one of the questioners of His Messiahness:

“How in the world can a private corporation providing insurance compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes . . . ? How can a company compete with that?”

Of course The Teleprompter-in-Chief had already given his example of Federal Express and UPS competing profitably with the Post Office – except the law is set that they cannot compete with the Post Office in delivering regular type mail directly to the public.  Does anybody think that a) the Post Office will give up this monopoly in order to level the playing field? or b) that the Post Office would stand a chance if Fed Ex and UPS could really compete completely.

What you have with Fed Ex and UPS is a private company that can compete by offering a superior product (actual on-time delivery with the ability to track your packages, etc) which people will pay for in order to get the service they want.  I’m sure Ed can remember the time when you were prevented (not that an option didn’t exist, it was against the law) from sending anything other than with the Post Office.  And it was a drop off and pray that it might show up sometime and maybe would only be slightly crushed.  Track your package? – hear the postal employees laugh at you.

Which is not to say the government can’t learn from competition.  The Post Office does give you tracking and delivery times (well, within a day or two – not up to the level of a FedEx or UPS).  Ed, do you think the PO would have done this on its own?  <gales of laughter>

Then we move on to other examples from Ed:

Water: The cheapest bottled water I saw at the supermarket was the house brand at 99 cents per gallon. The Salida Municipal Utility Department delivers potable water to my kitchen for about 1/6 of a cent per gallon. Private water costs at least 600 times more than public.

So the public was taxed to put in place all the pipelines and infrastructure to deliver water to each house.  And after all that fleecing is done, they can deliver water for 1/6 cent per gallon.  Is the cost of all the infrastructure included in that price?  No – its already paid for.  Would any other water provider be given the right of way to install their own infrastructure to compete with what was already in place?  Of course not.

So instead they compete on a different playing field – bottling the water, marketing it, transporting it, selling it, and making a profit.  The fact that its water in both cases is not really comparing apples to apples.  Now, if the Salida Water Department was willing to compete in bottling and marketing and selling their water – then you would be able to see if the public and private can co-exist.  Again, my money would be on the private company wiping out the public one should that happen.

Education: Private schools (and home schooling) seem to compete just fine these days, despite all the tax support provided to public schools. Even my backwater county has two, one K-8 and the other K-12.

Here we start getting a little closer to a regular comparison,  but there is one little issue.  All those people sending their children to private school or doing it at home are FORCED to pay for the public schools that they don’t even use.  How about rebating back all the property taxes that they must pay – or be sent to jail – and then see how the public and private areas compete?  The public schools would go down the chute – or they would actually have to start educating their students instead of indoctrinating them in ecoNazism and Obama Worship.  But I would expect that most of them would simply go out of business if they had to compete on a level playing field.

Transportation: In cities, private taxis, limousines and shuttle vans co-exist with public buses, subways and streetcars.

Again, the public buses, subways, and streetcars (I guess this means Denver light rail) forcibly extract money from everyone – even those who don’t use the buses, subways or streetcars.  And then they provide horrible service, at inconvenient times, with an ever rising cost, and are continually complaining about how their budget is insufficient and even more must be beaten out of taxpayers.  Most of these “services” are really just pension boondoggles that are run for the convenience of the unions and employees.  Again, want to compete on a level playing field?  Actually have the people who use these systems pay the full cost of what it would take to transport them back and forth?

Again, the private option if it could compete on a truely level playing field would wipe out “public” transportation.  Which is why the government makes sure that a) the costs are hidden by spreading them to the huge number of people who don’t use the service and b) sets monopoly power to ensure there is not competition.

Electricity: Over the years, I have preferred dealing with private providers like Xcel, as opposed to municipal or co-op suppliers. Despite all those scary Reddy Kilowatt ads that I saw in my youth, warning that public power was Bolshevism or worse, the private electrical utilities appear to be thriving.

Can people in Salida actually choose between two different power providers?  Can anybody in America?  It would be interesting if people actually could choose between a government provider which was mandated to have 25% renewables and all the crap that keeps getting piled on electricity generators and a private company that just worked hard to get your electricity at the lowest price they could make a profit on.  Again, want to be who wins?

But the whole false dicotomy set up here, is that in none of these examples mail, transportation, water, electricity is there the government mandate (i.e. do this or go to jail) that is in the health care bills.  You MUST have health insurance or the IRS will deduct it out of your bank account.  Your employer MUST provide health insurance that meets the standards of some government twit or they will be fined 8% of payroll costs.

The fact that they want to stack the deck so that almost all small businesses will just dump their private insurance and pay the 8% fine and have to leave their employees to the tender mercies of the benevolent government bureaucrats.  And that they will then (later of course, the details always come later) tax the crap out of anybody who still has private insurance and force them into the public plan too.

We know that all of the “government” services couldn’t compete with the private sector without the playing field being stacked in the government’s favor.  And we also know that the public health option will be exactly the same thing.

And putting the actual control of life and death in the hands of a government–any government–isn’t freedom.  Its serfdom.

P.S.  Being a good liberal Ed had to snark at the start and end of his article about the guy who asked the question:

The student, Zach Lahn, was an aide to state Sen. Greg Brophy, a Wray Republican, although he did not so identify himself.

Apparently only Democrat aides and plants and ACORN members get to identify themselves as they wish (and he is a college student), not Republicans.  And then the lovely hit at religion:

To address Zach Lahn’s question, private companies do find profitable ways to compete with public options. Now here’s a question for him. On Twitter, he identifies himself as a “determined Christian conservative.” So where in the Bible does the Gospel-writer Luke, a physician, criticize Jesus for unfairly competing by healing a woman who “had suffered under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse,” as well as the blind, lame and leprous, all at no charge?

Jesus also didn’t demand that 50% of your money which is what we know “free” healthcare will cost us through the government.  You know they are down to the bottom of the barrel when liberals start talking about Jesus.  I mean as a positive thing.

Great Moments in The Obama Presidency: Caterpillar Edition

February 11, 2009:

Obama said Caterpillar’s CEO has told him that if the stimulus bill passes he would be able to rehire some of those employees.

February 18, 2009:

President Barack Obama signed his $787 billion economic stimulus package into law Tuesday, with an upbeat speech emphasizing the road to recovery.

March 18, 2009:

Caterpillar Inc, the world’s largest maker of construction and mining equipment, notified an additional 2,454 workers in three states on Tuesday that they were losing their jobs as the company continues to try to bring production in line with plummeting demand.

stimulus_poster

Obama Saves The Economy – Item 1

As expected – the media is looking around and realizing that running down the economy isn’t going to help The Messiah save the planet.  And here’s the first sign that I have seen that we will be seeing lots of  “things aren’t so bad” articles now that The Holy One is in charge:

Yes, car sales are down. Yes, Wall Street’s in the pits. Job losses are dismal and mounting. What about the housing market? Let’s not even go there. But I believe several factors — low interest rates, relatively low energy costs and renewed taxpayer and consumer confidence in the incoming presidential administration — could help ignite at least moderate growth before 2009 winds up.

green shoots ahead – and it will all be because Obama comes to the rescue.

messiah_obama