0 Responses to “Projection”

1. stuart says:

   February 9, 2009 at 7:28 am

   The best I’ve seen so far is Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. He definitely has a future in national politics.
2. JeffC says:

   February 9, 2009 at 7:46 am

   At least Steele isn’t one of those Ted Stevens, on-the-take sort, pay-your-relatives sort of Republicans. … What? Under investigation, you say? Wow.

   What kind of criminality would he have engaged in if he had not washed out of elective office at Lt. Governor?

   WaPo:
   “Michael S. Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, arranged for his 2006 Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed, his finance chairman from that campaign has told federal prosecutors.”

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020604151.html?hpid=topnews

   Nice “face of the party” clowns.
3. Stan says:

   February 9, 2009 at 7:54 am

   So a contracted job is not a job? And “private sector” jobs are permanent? Steele is an idiot. And he’s being mocked all over the web for this lame attempt at an answer. This is your vision of success? Well, given that you thought George W was also a success, I guess I can see the logiv.
4. Alexander Almasov says:

   February 9, 2009 at 7:54 am

   Too bad fool no. 2 can’t even read the background to the WPost’s latest effort at sliming — after all, it’s only all over the blogosphere.
5. Alexander Almasov says:

   February 9, 2009 at 7:55 am

   Glad that fool no. 3 can see the logiv. Anyone else?
6. Ted Turner says:

   February 9, 2009 at 9:10 am

   Steel did fine here, and expressed himself logivally. It’s Steph’s job to argue with him, but the distinction Steele expressed about the finite impact of creating jobs through issuing government contracts is correct. FDR ran into this with the New Deal – the economy expanded and unemployment decreased from ’33 to 37, but as soon as he cut back on spending unemployment spiked again and we went right back into recession, which is a big reason the Dems got wiped out in the ’38 midterms. Put another way, fighting a recession only by spending money on “job creating” government contracts is like trying to light wet wood. You can’t keep lighting matches forever. Put yet another way, as Thatcher is supposed to have said, “sooner or later the socialists always run out of other people’s money.”
7. Brendan says:

   February 9, 2009 at 9:12 am

   Boy, I can’t agree, and I want Steele to do well. I think he ddid a horrible job explaining a fundamental point.

   The distinction is that private sector jobs ultimately bring in money for the country, and public sector jobs do not. Think of the national economy as like a big company. You have salesmen to sell stuff (traders, exporters), engineers, manufacturing labor, and so on. Those are the doers. Then you have management – their job is to help the doers do their jobs better.

   Finally, you have HR, accounting, facilities, and so on – overhead. Their job is to maintain the company infrastructure – that’s it. Smart companies never devote more money to the overhead departments than necessary, and never give those employees authority over the doers and the managers except on low levels (e.g., this is how to fill out the health insurance paperwork). Why? Because those employees don’t know how to do. They can’t sell or design or make anything. And, company money that is spent on them can’t be spent on improving engineering, manufacturing, the sales process, and so on.

   In our country, the private sector is the doers, the voters are the management, and government is the overhead. Government should not have any more money or authority than absolutely necessary.

   I would support the bailout if it was really going to necessary infrastructure improvements. Hey, I know that our bridges, defense technology, many schools and so on badly need repair or replacement. But this bill funds very little of that necessary work – instead it’s going to fund free jazz concerts on the National Mall. What a stupid reason to go into debt.
8. Ted Turner says:

   February 9, 2009 at 9:20 am

   Beyond Steele, we have others who can also effectively express themselves even when faced with the inexorably biased assumptions of cable news “moderators.” One thing Stan is right on, perhaps the only thing, is that George W. Bush was not a success. Big reason for that: he couldn’t express himself. Let’s please not make that mistake again by pushing Sarah Palin forward. (“Well, you know, Charlie, the thing is, we can see Russia from Alaska, so, when Putin rears his head into our airspace, then it’s important to shoot a moose from a helicopter with a bazooka.”)

   Tim Pawlenty is great; so is Jindal; so is Romney; so is Sanford; and so is Crist, even though he’s wrong on the Porkulus bill.
9. Stan says:

   February 9, 2009 at 9:25 am

   Hilarious. Out of one side of your mouths you argue that you oppose this plan because stimulus must be temporary. Then, out of the other, you argue that you are opposed to this plan because its stimulative effect is temporary.

   Why don’t you just acknowledge that you are the party of no. Republicans never were going to support the president. And it’s just as well. When we pull out of this downturn, as we always do, people will cite Obama’s leadership over Republicans’ opposition.

   You just handed Obama a great victory and strengthened his hand going forward.
10. GirdYourLoins says:

    February 9, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Stan: The more Obama can be tarred with this spendthrift stimulus bill, the better for the forces of conservatism. His approach is Japan-lost-decade redux. Even if his party only loses 10% of its seats in 2010, he and it will be in such a panic that they’ll pass a “superstimulus” bill thereafter and then he and they will be out in 2012. So what Obama is being handed is a pyrrhic victory. Enjoy the celebration.
11. Cas Balicki says:

    February 9, 2009 at 9:57 am

    # 7, Brendan, what you are saying is that no money can be spent without first being made/earned by a wealth creating mechanism. Government makes no new wealth, it only spends what has already been made.

    The actual percentage of the economy/labour force that generates new wealth is somewhere between 30 and 40%, or a clear minority. The problem with this is obvious, the smallest part of the economy has to pay for the largest part. Economically speaking, expanding the larger part at the expense of the smaller cannot possibly make things better. Indeed, as the Soviet Union and other socialists states have proven, it is a suicide pact.
12. chuck martel says:

    February 9, 2009 at 10:24 am

    But even Republicans and conservatives are going along with a “stimulus”, just in a reduced, redirected form. Nobody from the right side has stepped forward and articulated in a comprehensible manner why this is crazy. Maybe they see local access to federal funds as a consolation prize or the big prize. In any event, there is no proof, no indication, no hint that creating trillions of dollars in imaginary money is going to turn back the clock to some halcyon era of full employment and cheap credit. The future, as usual, will be different than the past. Let the free market determine that future. And create a platform for those willing and able to present that message in a form that the population can digest.
13. Richard says:

    February 9, 2009 at 11:00 am

    According to Stephy, we should all go work for the government. That’s the only permanent job there is.

    AAAAHHHHHH!!! This kind of nanny logic makes me scream! Sorry for the outburst, but a job is NOT A RIGHT!! If I can leave my employer for another, then my employer can take my job and give it to someone else. What has happened to the old-fashioned entrepreneural spirit in this country? Have we become such big wimps that we can’t take a little hardship once in a while? Europeans would kill for our economy. They’ve had double-digit unemployment for years.

    Based on this clip, Steele didn’t do a very good job. It’s not whether jobs are temporary or permanent. It’s about private business versus public handouts. That’s the argument Steele should have made. He should have shot down Stephy’s argument by expounding on the merits of private business ownership, and the power the private business has in the economy. Especially small businesses. I don’t remember the exact number, but somewhere over 70% of all people are employeed in a business with less than 50 people. (Again, that might not be exactly right, but you get the picture.) This is the future of our country. This is what our economic engine is based on, and this is who should receive the support, or stimulus. But Stephy and his fellow liberals believe that only government can employ, and only goverment can get us out of this recession.

    The Republicans have got to start making a stronger argument for the private sector.
14. Margo says:

    February 9, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    In my book, Steele gets at least one cheer just for opposing the idea that government contracts are stimulative. Though I agree with those above who point out further arguments that need to be made.

    Here’s another: Government job “creators” are not in a good position to know what the public really wants to pay for, because their public is forced to pay through taxes. Once you have paid your taxes you might go to a town meeting to see how those funds can be directed, but there you can only choose among public projects. Both small and large businesses work hard to find out what the public values and wants, and to provide that at the best price. They therefore are targeting their investments much more closely to public needs, which means that resources are being directed mucy more exactly to what people deem will improve their lives.

    Put another way, if people in Nevada really wanted a museum of organized crime, couldn’t someone have started it and expected to make a profit from all the visitors? Or couldn’t a group have found donors to endow it? Apparently, it wasn’t an investment priority for anyone; it was a second-line “opportunity” that made sense only if someone else (the federal government) was going to put up the money.
15. Warpublican Review says:

    February 9, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    “No, it’s not a job. A job is something that — that a business owner creates. It’s going to be long term. What he’s creating…”

    What nonsense – Republicans are making this absurd argument (that ONLY private businesses make “jobs” – ignoring – completely, the largest governement jobs organization of them all – a compelte socialist organization – that covers everything from cradle to grave – including medical, housing, clothing, food and entertainment – a socialist organization that employs 3026625 people NOT including civilians or associated contractors – anybody want to guess what that non-employer of non-workers working non-jobs is called?

    That would be the US military…

    idiots…
16. Richard says:

    February 9, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Nowhere in the US Constitution (remember that document?) does is say the government should be the largest employer, and the permanent employer of its citizens. The military is the exception, because the Constitution does define national defense as a fundamental role.

    Sadly, neither party seems to acknowledge the existence of the Constitution, much less the limits it places on the activities of government. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves now, knowing that what they fought, bled, and died for is being completely unraveled by today’s political class.
17. CK MacLeod says:

    February 9, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Turns out that the conservatives are the last Marxists on this issue – that is, they are the only ones left who (mostly) understand that government make-work amounts to unproductive consumption. In many instances it amounts to destructive consumption. Once upon a time, when the left stood for something other than public sector rent-seeking, the only ones “in favor” of bills like this one would be the revolutionaries who found it laughable from top to bottom, but were happy to see capitalism pushing itself further into self-strangulation.
18. J.E. Dyer says:

    February 9, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    Good points made by others here (Brendan, Margo, Richard etc). The fundamental reason government can’t create wealth or demand is that it is an arbitrary political organization. It doesn’t look for success, in people’s voluntary interests and desires, and follow it — government proposes, a priori, to PRESCRIBE success, to define it in advance, and enforce it, regardless of any conditions that arise naturally from other influences.

    People understand this instinctively, even if they can’t express it. The difference in risk is the key: the risk of the free market, and of voluntary transactions, leaves the entrepreneur in charge of his fate. The absence of risk in government decisions does the opposite.

    Consider the following proposition of two things affecting a home-based entrepreneur’s calculations in 2009. One is potential demand, for which she might consider factors like who is moving into her area, who is moving out, what she thinks people in a down economy will still be determined to buy, how much the prices of groceries and gas are likely to go up. To figure these things out, she will do research, get out in the community and interact with people, informally poll her friends and neighbors, talk to other people in her business, as well as in others, take a community college seminar. When it’s time to make financial commitments, she will use her best judgment and, ultimately, take a risk. If she is wise, she will have plans in place to reevaluate and adjust, in a variety of ways, from modifying how she defines and advertises her product to adjusting volume, price, and her target market. The very fact that she will have the option to do the latter is the nature of freedom in the market, and the basis for building a business.

    The other factor influencing her calculations is that after 2010, her federal taxes will almost certainly go back up. In February 2009, based on the political situation, she is pretty sure the Bush tax cuts will end on schedule, without being renewed. She also knows, because she patronizes a good accountant and stays on top of it, exactly what impact those increased taxes will have on her, in any probable business and income situation she can project. There is no question of taking the risk that the Bush tax cuts MIGHT be renewed. This is a government factor in her calculations; risk is not in the mix. She can’t influence the outcome, with any action of her own, if she takes a risk on those taxes, and they sure enough go back up in 2011. She can’t juggle anything, maneuver to escape the government’s requirement (unless she plans to seek a cabinet appointment with Barack Obama) — she will simply have to pay her taxes. So she plans to, and trims current business activities accordingly.

    Government’s impact on business is arbitrary; it cannot be synergistically superseded; you can’t affect it with the tools of business: product adjustment, cost-cutting, streamlining, marketing, customer care. It’s an overhead cost, but it’s one you don’t control. OR, as the Keynesians propose, government is a customer, but one whose demand you can’t affect or stimulate through any action of yours.

    The arbitrariness of government is such that you don’t take risks on it. You wait to know what it’s going to do, and while you don’t, you hedge your bets. That usually means either (a) arranging beforehand to owe the government as little as possible — which means NOT taking more income, NOT hiring new people, NOT adding vehicles to your fleet or square feet to your manufacturing plant. Or (b) waiting until you are sure government is hiring before you gear up to be a contractor, and then saving, rather than spending, against that future day when government no longer seeks your services, and there is nothing you can do about it.

    The opportunity for people to make their own decisions about risk is what makes all the difference. Government can never simulate the free market from that standpoint.
19. TGermany says:

    February 9, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    As always, J. E. Dyer has given a great last word. But if I may, please let me add a postscript.

    A job is a job is a job, whether it is a private sector job or a public sector job. The real challenge for both government and the private sector is to employ workers (i.e., create jobs) that produce a product or service with real value. In this area, government usually fails.

    A government job to build a road, though that job will only last one year, has the same value in that local economy has any other new job for that year. But when that government job is finished, as in when the road is built, then the question becomes: What’s the value of the road produced by those jobs? If that road serves a meaningful use to its community, then it might attract further investment and create more jobs to follow. If that road, instead, is just another “Bridge to Nowhere”, then the money spent on the bridge and all those jobs was wasted.

    In my opinion, this stimulus bill contains far too many “Bridges of to Nowhere”.
20. J.E. Dyer says:

    February 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    TGermany — I think you’re right. Post 19 is a trackback from the discussion on my new blog, in which I liken the government “stimulus” proposal to the “give a man a fish” part of the old adage. We might extend the analogy further and say that, in addition to getting out of the way of the lake, government needs to build a better road to it, and perhaps refurbish the dam.

    Instead of doing anything useful, so that we can all fish more productively and profitably, government is proposing to take over fishing altogether, and hand out stinky fish and call it “stimulus.” The theory here seems to be: Give a man a fish, and he will go trade it for a new Prius.