The Phony Quest for More Jobs--A Prediction: Obama will Just Create and Transfer Debt for Jobs Funding.

 Update 12.08.09: President Obama unveils jobs plan, no price tag http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30347.html

 “We are all Keynesians now” was a quote[1] from the past in my Econ 101 book by Paul Samuelson in early 1970. The origin of this was probably Richard Nixon who may have misunderstood Milton Friedman’s comment in Time in 1966. The quote is partially a lament in that some switch from a free market economy to one in which the government had more control is mandated and was considered not to be the best option. Keynesianism is basically a criticism of any feature of a given western economy where the business people, far outside and away from government controls,  make decisions in the economy using free market operations and this capitalism fails to supply a satisfactory solution to some element of the economy. [2] Marxist economies are never criticized by Keynesians. When any element of the free market fails to meet expectations then the government may, by the License of Keynes, step in and ‘correct’ that problem with fiscal and monetary policies. Conversely, many socialist or Marxist economies of the command-and-control sort fail miserably, crumble in debt and inflation, and recover only from entrepreneurism [read capitalism]—the very antithesis of Keynes. Such examples are the shrunken remains of the USSR and most parts of Eastern Europe and of course the People’s Republic of China. As such we can nosily abuse the old pendulum cliché and accuse the parties of having learned nothing from the past as we swing into socialism or worse as is our fate.

There is always the manufactured fear that the economy will fall into the clutches of Laissez-faire [“hands off”] economics[3] where corporations have too much freedom from government and gobble up the wealth. Presumably, the ‘government’ can adjust the economic factors and ‘control’ business and generate an egalitarian society that benefits all. The quest for ‘equality’[4] becomes the basis for new government programs that attempt to control business and redistribute the wealth when it swings out of balance. This is featured in the currently failing California Model [5][6][7] which will soon show us a few new and exciting adventures in defaults and failed government. This nostrum that government can step in and ‘fix’ things al la FDR never happens, but is a good political vector to pursue and those with little or nothing will always be attracted to some persons or theory if they are promised money.

If this problem was solidly circumscribed solely by the elements of the economies in question then we might strike some reasonable balance among the two approaches and avoid an oscillatory set of reflexive measures that bounce off the extremes. We cannot do this because of politics. The economic world exists only in an ensemble of economic pyramids with only a few who can manage to generate wealth thus producing a ladder system where people are necessarily unequal. This is unacceptable to the left. They believe in such nostrums as affirmative action where just about anybody can run a corporation or perform intricate brain surgery. They deny the facts as outlined in the Bell Curve[8][9][10] and insist that there is no distribution of cognitive skills and we must be equal. We, thusly, cannot trust our politicians, as history clearly shows us, with the care and feeding of any economy less they destroy it in the quest for power based on greed or some ideology with the phony excuse that they will provide equality.

Socialists like Bernard Shaw [Shavianism][11] had argued for forced equality using government policies whereby they would accept and implement his Fabianism.[12] He monotonously postulated that incomes should be equal. Shaw could not produce a scenario by which this might occur after repeated requests but he did praise the Bolsheviks for their attempts in this area. Of course, the Soviets distributed the loot from their plunder after murdering millions according to party membership thus providing a very good life for the top tier of the 4% of the Russian population who were party members and the rest were left with a much smaller portion or to starve.  The Ukrainians were summarily starved. Strangely, the typical leftist can celebrate and praise a flamboyant dictator like Castro who impoverishes their own country and produces poverty, war and famine as long as the money the dictator squanders was derived from the rich or from nationalizing corporate capital. Food was the issue in the Ukraine in the 30s as elsewhere and the Soviet solution was Holodomor (Ukrainian: ????????? translation: death by starvation).^[13] The left can seemingly stand up and offer to support the ‘poor’ even though they preach these lies from atop a pile of 100,000,000 dead bodies.

 So, we face a new Obama mandate to ‘create jobs’ in the Keynesian or Roosevelt cases, as appropriate, and business must submit to some new pressures or shut down or leave this hostile environment for capitalism. The phony ‘stimulus’ programs of the last year with its non existent ‘shovel ready’ jobs and infrastructure refurbishments were a failure and a joke. The reporting of jobs on recovery.gov gives us a hint of how this administration handles jobs, facts and reports the truth.[14] Our major problem in this economy was the wild and unrestrained use of credit that allowed people with no creditworthiness to ‘buy’ homes with nothing down mandated by leftist political pressure groups and the government as in the ‘affordable housing’ laws, a Neo-Marxian solution called the CRA [Community Reinvestment Act].[15][16] The original purpose of this socialist scheme was to redistribute the wealth without equally distributing the cost. Thus, the low class was offered wealth in terms of ‘affordable housing’ with no responsibilities at all to repay its debts and only their future votes were desired as payment. The credit defaults come from the low class, mostly Democrats and criminals. We lost 10 trillion dollars in wealth in that scheme. We are going to lose more as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are insolvent.

Our current Neo-Marxist government now blends fascism[17][18][19] with socialism in an attempt to redistribute the wealth as we saw in the GM and Chrysler bailouts where bond holders and stock holders were wipe out and the remains given to the unions while the management was replaced by orders from the White House. This is the only way they know how to play the economic game: Grunt and Grab. The Obama administration sees only wealth transfers[20] as the way to ‘create’ jobs and that is what they will use. They will recycle TARP monies and print more money and find ways to tax and intimidate businesses into hiring more people thus making them inefficient. This comes at a time when business has barely adjusted to the credit crunches and cut costs and found ways to be profitable—an insult to the left almost as comparable to the growth we saw during the Ronald Reagan Era.

So, Obama will:

[1] He will ‘create’ new jobs by taxing energy and health care by punishing all citizens using the phony pretext that we are saving the planet from destruction or providing care for all.

[2] He will announce that the government is the ‘employer of last resort’ [or a paraphrase of this nostrum] and use debt to pay for this. Our economy will collapse in massive debt.[21]

[3] Based on some phony deficit-neutral mantra, he will tax  everything in sight including businesses to manufacture phony jobs and expect the ‘rich’ to pay for all that with massive taxes of all sorts including confiscatory inheritance taxes and massive health care taxes. Business will shut down because of the extra costs and oppressive business climate.

All this will drive us further into debt and make the current 12 trillion dollar national debt look small by comparison. This is his only known option. He cannot or will not work with business in any other than the role of Commissar and continue to print money to cover the debt service.  The correct procedure here is to cut taxes for corporations and aid business and enhance the tax revenues from the salaries of new workers. This is called growth and is anathema to the left.

A lot of Americans are going to get some very expensive education about credit, government spending and taxation from Obama and they will not like it. But, they wanted ‘change’ and they are going to get just that.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Can Afford to Talk About Affordable Truths Because Talk is Still Cheap and So Is Your Tax Monies for Liberals.

Abstract: Krugman tells us that massive changes to the business community to combat Glob al Warming are “affordable.” He uses every sort of Neo-Keynesian persuasion short of selling candy on the streets to make his point that we should burden business with carbon dioxide caps and sell ‘credits’ like peasants sell onions in the bazaar. He is optimistic that the recent evidence of massive fraud and made public will not damage the prospects of the left in Copenhagen.

Propaganda is based on persuasion so there is little need to usher in a lot of facts to prove your point if a quick slap in the face with the demagogic paddle is achievable. Propaganda[1][2][3][4] is the foundation of left-liberal articles in the New York Times (that is known affectionately as the Walter Duranty Papers[5] in honor of their most beloved Pulitzer Prize winner) are built upon a curious blend of noisy and erratic pandering to special interest groups such as unions, special interest groups and certified Ouija board prophets who can foresee what is best for humankind.  

The successful propaganda piece thus mixes hatred, fear and an offer of money or safety or some appeal to other human needs and today’s article offers all this wonder to all of us at a very low cost. We are buried in 12 trillion dollars worth of debt and are well  beyond the capability to pay this off before our economy sinks in inflation and worse but we can ‘afford’ a few trillion dollars more to save us from disaster.

“Maybe I’m naïve, but I’m feeling optimistic about the climate talks starting in Copenhagen on Monday”[6]--An Affordable Truth By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: December 6, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Let’s start out on a high note.

“It’s also encouraging to see developing countries — including China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide — agreeing, at least in principle, that they need to be part of the solution.”-- An Affordable Truth By Paul Krugman

India said they would not agree to fixed limit and this is causing internal squabbles, but India has always said NO to such fixed quotas.[7] China is also unwilling to do anything other than mumble.

Implicit in the construction of a proper propaganda piece is the timely assertion that we face some major problem and that the problem is real and urgent and that we can, shoulder to shoulder, work out the difficulties and solve this given enough government and tax revenues.  Here the phony Global Warming Follies[8] replete with scientific fraud, corruption and undignified conduct[9] still braces up the truss where the left can hang bogeypersons  and accommodate the ‘poor’ who crawl to their feet to grovel and bawl for alms. So, phony or not, here we take a go at the world’s tax base.

Next, comes a glittering jewel of circular logic, spam and hokum unmatched in the literature:

“Why should you believe that cutting emissions is affordable? First, because financial incentives work.

Action on climate, if it happens, will take the form of “cap and trade”: businesses won’t be told what to produce or how, but they will have to buy permits to cover their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. So they’ll be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon — and there’s every reason to believe that they’ll be clever and creative about finding ways to do just that.”-- An Affordable Truth By Paul Krugman

This is perhaps the best example of a triple reverse baloney tangle.

Stripped of its fluff and glitter, here is what we are looking at:

[1] Some phony government, perhaps the UN, will ‘decide’ how much CO2 can be emitted based on some phony science backed by fraud and deceit and will issue ‘permits’ for that amount, currently about 28$ per ton.

[2] Penalties will be severe for ignoring these restricted emissions so companies will be forced to buy ‘credits’ from others, many just silly leftists who can ‘sell’ their credits based on not eating beef, or planting more marijuana plants than is legal  or driving expensive electric cars.

[3] A ‘market’ is thus established where these permits will be bought and sold and speculators and frauds can sell into this market and make big money.[10]

[4] The corps will buy these phony items and then find out that [a] they have a finite lifetime or [b] they need to buy more since the permitted carbon emissions limits increased. So, they will have to buy even more credits. Then more liberals will sell more credits and the cycle continues.

Now, what is the net effect of this? Money is transferred from the corporations to the lower classes.  Actually, production costs must rise with any tax or fee so there is no known benefit to anyone as most of the CO2 is natural in the first place and China and India and South America will not participate in this scam.  That leaves only 40% of the world to handle the whole problem. But, people like Al Gore will make billions! Here is the CO2 song from the recently humiliated University of East Anglia[11] and the UN’ IPCC attempt to tell us that all additional CO2 comes from deforestation and follies fuel burning. [12]

And, just to make it more juicy and more of a delight to the EcoNazis, your pathetic government just now announced [hours ago at this writing] that CO2 is a pollutant and is coming  up with an  "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

“An endangerment finding would allow the EPA to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, which are produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. Under that law, the EPA could require emitters of as little as 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year to install new technology to curb their emissions starting as soon as 2012.”[13]-- Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule

This all seems to come together like a syncretic assimilation of cannibalism and prostitution all made possible by liberal politics and phony science. Does marijuana smoke create more CO2? How about AIDS or snorting coke? Will we have to drain the swamps?

“Curbing greenhouse gases will be a much bigger and more complex task — but we’re likely to be surprised at how easy it is once we get started.”-- An Affordable Truth By Paul Krugman

This kind of surprise comes from fiddling with new crack pipes too. How easy it is to overdose! How friendly they are at rehab.

“So let’s hope my optimism about Copenhagen is justified. A deal there would save the planet at a price we can easily afford — and it would actually help us in our current economic predicament.”-- An Affordable Truth By Paul Krugman

What is the price in dollars Krugman and who pays for this? Oh, the consumer! Well, that is fine. He never talks costs when he wants more taxes.

This is a putrid lie. This is just another slimy Grunt and Grab tax scheme and a way for bigger government and inefficient business.  This is the kind of thinking that characterizes the Sacramento leadership in California[14][15][16], now heading for default and the social latrines among other things.

You wanted ‘change’ from Obama and you are going to get it and when this is though instead of money you will only change in your pockets.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com