Monthly Archives: December 2008

Return Of The WPA

Prior to the election, the question loomed — would a potential Obama administration govern as a political moderate?

The recession and financial crisis have solidified the answer… FDR and LBJ may have nothing on BHO!

President-elect Barack Obama is focusing his economic recovery strategy on making the biggest investment in the nation’s infrastructure since President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the interstate highway system a half-century ago.

Speaking yesterday at a Chicago news conference and on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said state governors have many such projects that are “shovel ready,” meaning they could be undertaken swiftly and have an immediate impact on jobs.

He declined to specify a price tag for the stimulus, saying his advisers are “busy working, crunching the numbers, looking at the macroeconomic data to make a determination as to what the size and the scope of the economic recovery plan needs to be. But it is going to be substantial.

How substantial? Let’s just say that price is no object to this administration:

Later at the Chicago news conference, he said “more aggressive steps” are needed to cope with the housing crisis.

Even with the prospect of a federal budget shortfall approaching $1 trillion, “we can’t worry, short term, about the deficit,” he said on NBC. “We’ve got to make sure that the economic stimulus plan is large enough to get the economy moving.”

It seems we’re in stage three of Reagan’s aphorism:

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

And oh, the subsidies will be expensive. We’ll all pay for them, whether through crushing taxation or runaway inflation, but we’ll pay. Welcome to the United State Formerly Known As America, people.

ABC Shows Us Just How Little Anti-Terrorism The Homeland Security Apparatus Does

Reality TV junkie? Also a State-worshipper? Then you’re in luck!

Every day the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security patrol more than 100,000 miles of America’s borders. This territory includes airports, seaports, land borders, international mail centers, the open seas, mountains, deserts and even cyberspace. Now viewers will get an unprecedented look at the work of these men and women while they use the newest technology to safeguard our country and enforce our laws, in “Homeland Security USA,” which debuts with the episode “This is Your Car on Drugs,”

How much of this “epic” TV show will actually have to do with terrorism? Will this finally belie the claim that the Department of Homeland Security was created with purely “keeping us safe from evildoers” as it’s mandate, or will it be another dose of soma “reality television” for the unquestioning masses. Bear in mind, that’s a rhetorical question, we all know the answer is the latter.

Why Nationalization Damages Liberty and Prosperity

Many progressives are looking forward to increased government oversight over the auto industry. They see this as a chance to influence the types of vehicles that are produced and to dictate that production be turned to socially beneficial uses, including the manufacture of green cars that auto manufacturers are not manufacturing. These vehicles are not manufactured presently because car manufacturers see bigger profits in continuing to produce SUV’s and more cheaply built sedans. Viewing this judgment as short-sighted, progressives are overjoyed at the prospect of including non-monetary considerations such as ecology or social needs in deciding what to produce. We who oppose the nationalization are viewed either as being too stupid to recognize the benefits of introducing considerations other than profits to production decisions, or as being wed to outdated economic theories or to be apologists for fat-cat capitalists.

This is incorrect. Rather, the progressives who support nationalization are being very short-sighted and are threatening to return society back to feudalism and are threatening to destroy the development of new technologies, technologies that will be vital to improving our standard of living while reducing the amount of pollution and natural resources needed to maintain such comfort. This not hyperbole but rather simple fact.

The problem, which has plagued all fascist and socialist economies throughout history, is that nationalization destroys the ability of the economy to rationally allocate capital goods and invest in the future. It is this incapability that is behind the phenomenon where communist countries seem to become mired in the past with stagnant technology, bare shelves in shops and factories that routinely fail to meet production quotas. » Read more

I am an anarcho-capitalist living just west of Boston Massachussetts. I am married, have two children, and am trying to start my own computer consulting company.

Welcome To The New American Auto Industry

If the Democrats in Congress get what they want, the real headquarters of Ford, GM, and Chrysler won’t be in Detroit any more:

All three restructuring plans are heavy on promises to build the “green” cars that a Democratic Congress wants built. GM promises 15 hybrid models by 2012 and 37 miles per gallon on average for its cars. Chrysler commits to putting flex-fuel engines, which can run on ethanol or gasoline, in half of its cars. Ford promises to save 16 billion gallons of gas by using “advanced technology” and to invest $14 billion to improve fuel efficiency.

All three CEOs also drove to Washington in hybrid vehicles as penance for their private-jet flights back in November. This bit of political obeisance was supposed to show that they’d gotten religion both on their perks and their carbon footprint. But it may not have been enough. One Congresswoman wanted to know why they couldn’t hit a 50-mpg fuel-economy target by 2015. Another asked whether, maybe, they weren’t selling enough cars because everyone in America was waiting with baited breath for the coming revolution in fuel economy.

After Barney Frank was done roughing up the CEOs, he hustled them out to hear from David Friedman of Union of Concerned Scientists and Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute. Mr. Friedman warned the Members not to give one inch on fuel-economy standards and not to relax the environmental strings attached to the $25 billion Congress has already made available to the car companies.

You get the picture. If there was ever any question whether Congress actually wants to “save” Detroit, this week dispelled it. This is not a bailout that Congress is debating. It is a federal takeover. We don’t mean that in the sense that the feds will own the companies on paper, although that can’t be ruled out. What Congress wants to own is their business plan, and Detroit seems prepared to oblige.

And one can see the beginnings of that plan in the bailout that will apparently be voted on next week:

The government would order a major restructuring of Detroit’s struggling Big Three auto companies in exchange for a multibillion-dollar bailout under a plan circulating in Congress.

Skeptical lawmakers are weighing whether to dole out as much as $34 billion in aid to the automakers as the once-mighty companies make their second round of pleas for government help to keep them from collapsing by year’s end and potentially deepening an already painful recession.

With several lawmakers in both parties pressing them to consider a pre-negotiated bankruptcy – something they have consistently shunned – members of Congress and the Big Three both were contemplating a government-run restructuring that would yield similar results, including massive downsizing and labor givebacks.

As Stephen Green notes, there’s really no reason to believe that this “government oversight” will do what needs to be done to make any of the Big Three viable again:

[D]o you really see Congress axing thousands of dealers around the country, eliminating 8.5 car brands, or busting the UAW?

No, I don’t see it either. Instead, every decision about how to “save” the car companies will become politicized and the concern will be with satisfying interest groups rather than making the economic adjustments needed (i.e., brand-stripping, termination of dealer contracts, and even more massive down-sizing) to make these companies competitive.

Moreover, as both Bruce McQuain and Dave Schuler note, the amount of money being contemplated now is little more than a stop gap measure designed to keep the companies alive until sometime after January 20th when Barack Obama is President, the new Congress is in power, and those on the Hill who believe in free markets become even less able to affect the agenda.

Which is why I think these words will end up proving prophetic:

Two economists testified that the ultimate cost of this bailout would certainly be much, much higher than $34 billion. Mark Zandi of economy.com put the number at up to $125 billion — and he supports the bailout. NYU’s Edward Altman said the company proposals were “doomed to fail.” He proposed a prepackaged bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler, with the government providing the debtor-in-possession financing if necessary. His point, which ought to be sobering, was that outside of bankruptcy there is no way to make these taxpayer loans senior to existing secured debt — meaning the government might never get paid back if the companies go bankrupt later.

We’re about to give tens, and eventually hundreds, of billions of dollars that we don’t have to companies that have been dinosaurs for 30 years and, in the end, it’s quite likely that we’ll have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Anyone on Capitol Hill who votes in favor of this deal should be ashamed of themselves.

Cross-posted at Below The Beltway

Quote Of The Day

From Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience:

The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

1 5 6 7 8 9 10