Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

The Eternal Whine for More Taxes from Krugman

The Eternal Whine for More Taxes from Krugman

Abstract: As we noted a while back[1], certain events can produce various outcomes in a variety of ways on this planet, except, we must note, for certain political platitudes that are strewn about unaltered in size, logic or form for decades in a spirited defense of foul and phony government and to aid the leftist eternal expedition for relentlessly grubbing money from others. Today we add even more proof that the so-called economist Paul Krugman has something of a debatable stature when compared to a one-trick pony: All he ever does is bawl for higher taxes, more spending and bigger government. Some things are cast in prehistoric stone. Proof follows below.

How to best read my blogs:

[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]

Opening Comment:

Generally, in propaganda exercises of the basest sort, it is permissible to ignite exciting cosmic political flames using even the roughest circular logic featuring the conclusion boldly stated up front and then use the remaining text to amplify the original assumption thus providing a ‘proof’ that the initial argument was sound. This forms the strongest and most unassailable defensive ring of circular logic that such techniques can devise as long as no probing questions are allowed. An example burst forth in the Opinion Pages of the New York Times as of 8.06.11:

“Amid all the debt hysteria, it’s worth taking a look at the actual arithmetic here — because what this arithmetic says is that the size of the deficit in the next year or two hardly matters for the US fiscal position — and in fact the size over the next decade is barely significant.”-- The Arithmetic of Near-term Deficits and Debt By Paul Krugman August 6, 2011, 12:00 PM [2][emphatic points are mine in all quotes unless specifically stated otherwise.] [3]

Hardly matters? Look at the chart below. We could double out debt with our 1.5 trillion dollar deficits in a decade to 30 trillions or 200% of our GDP.

Today, this is amplified followed in theme and content by this:

“The supercommittee was a superdud — and we should be glad. Nonetheless, at some point we’ll have to rein in budget deficits. And when we do, here’s a thought: How about making increased revenue an important part of the deal?”[4]—Things to Tax. By Paul Krugman Published: November 27, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/opinion/krugman-things-to-tax.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Now, I was thinking about cutting government, approximately in half to get rid of the 40% deficit we have. This view is different from the constant whine for more taxes and higher spending by the left.

Higher taxes!

“And I don’t just mean a return to Clinton-era tax rates. Why should 1990s taxes be considered the outer limit of revenue collection? Think about it: The long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?”—Things to Tax. By Paul Krugman

Why not? Would a 100% tax be acceptable? Or, do we need more to pay for our failed social programs and debt?

[Item 1]

“About those high incomes: In my last column I suggested that the very rich, who have had huge income gains over the last 30 years, should pay more in taxes. I got many responses from readers, with a common theme being that this was silly, that even confiscatory taxes on the wealthy couldn’t possibly raise enough money to matter.

Folks, you’re living in the past. Once upon a time America was a middle-class nation, in which the super-elite’s income was no big deal. But that was another country.

The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money, and it wouldn’t be hard to devise taxes that would raise a significant amount of revenue from those super-high-income individuals.

For example, a recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out that before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above the 35 percent top rate that applies today. According to the center’s analysis, restoring those high-income brackets would have raised $78 billion in 2007, or more than half a percent of G.D.P. I’ve extrapolated that number using Congressional Budget Office projections, and what I get for the next decade is that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit.”—Things to Tax. By Paul Krugman

What a scam! He goes back into ancient history and picks some trend and extrapolates that, like the EcoNazis[5] do with carbon dioxide numbers, and shows that we can dent the 1.5 trillion dollar deficit!

[Item 2]

“And then there’s the idea of taxing financial transactions, which have exploded in recent decades. The economic value of all this trading is dubious at best. In fact, there’s considerable evidence suggesting that too much trading is going on. Still, nobody is proposing a punitive tax. On the table, instead, are proposals like the one recently made by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio for a tiny fee on financial transactions.

And here’s the thing: Because there are so many transactions, such a fee could yield several hundred billion dollars in revenue over the next decade. Again, this compares favorably with the savings from many of the harsh spending cuts being proposed in the name of fiscal responsibility”—Things to Tax. By Paul Krugman

We should regard economic trading as dubious? Only in some Marxist hamlet with no fresh drinking water or a radio. I am wondering what happened to the debt burden here. This nonsense is just a way to avoid cutting spending in any leftist social program. There is no mention of the debt here. Here are the current numbers from usdebtclock.org.

Federal Spending and Taxation [Trillions]

Column1

GDP

15

Spending

3.607

Tax revenue

2.304

deficit

1.303

70% of revenues

1.612

Deficit as % of GDP

8.7

Debt Track at Current Rate

Column1

2011

108.7

2012

117.4

2013

126.1

2014

134.8

2015

143.5

2016

152.2

2017

160.9

There are two significant factors to look at closely here: [1] at our current deficit of about $1.5 trillion dollars we surpass Italy in debt by 2014 and [2] the taxes paid by our ‘rich’ are already $1.3 trillions.

Question 1: Are Democrats really going to stop excess spending even IF taxes were raised another trillion??

Question 2: Are Democrats really going to reduce the debt by using extra tax revenues to buy up that debt?

The NYT excels in this practice of limiting the argument to a small sticky debating space and ignoring important inputs. Since near-financially bankrupt New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[6] was taught how to do this by Duranty and garnered some Pulitzer Prize and wild applause from the Communists and the simple for his lies and we also see this continue in practice today, we cannot believe anything in articles like this propaganda piece.

The word tautological must be expanded in scope and depth to accommodate most of the hackneyed scribbles and coached mental gyrations of the current screed. To suggest that there are no other options to leftist government than more taxes while ignoring the debt is sufficient proof to vote all these parasites out of office who agree with this socialist rubbish.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com


[4] Things to Tax. By Paul Krugman Published: November 27, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/opinion/krugman-things-to-tax.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[5] Polishing the Pedestal of the Stooges: EcoNazism threatened by Big Oil and the Charge of the Leftist Cavalry http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/10/polishing-pedestal-of-stooges-econazism.html

[6] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.

“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Unionwhich only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Krugman Spins Muppet-Grade Fables to Defend the Defenseless: Solyndra

Krugman Spins Muppet-Grade Fables to Defend the Defenseless: Solyndra

Abstract: The NYT now tells us that solar power is ‘affordable’ and that the Solyndra Scandal is not realistic. We are offered basic instruction in Moore’s Law that tells us that the cost of solar panels ought to fall 50% every 18 months or so. Using this theory, a $10,000 Rolex watch studded with diamonds made in 1915 should have fallen in price to a dollar or so in 1934 and could be sold in ton quantities for less than a dollar a ton in 1964.The facts are that even with government subsidies, a solar power system will cost more than $6000 and will take payments lasting 13 years to pay for excluding installation costs and financing and maintenance. The base asininity of this form of political grandiloquence soars beyond the limits of a simple lie and enters into the realm of sophisticated propaganda not seen since Pravda.

Introduction:

We are constantly enchanted while perusing the Opinion Section of the Walter Duranty Papers[1]—aka[the near-bankrupt] New York Times, because, like a fairy tale, to play the game and have fun, we have to scurry around and try to identify the bait and the rusty hooks upon which the current political nostrum is suspended. The sophistry is so thick we can pretend we are merely mixing imaginary cement and no group, baring Pravda in their halcyon days, could do a better job. But, viewed from a higher perch, we can also use this paper in the retrograde mode to signal us what new and expensive economic failure scenarios are cooking in the little minds of the sodded left and their scurrying stooges.

Today, we are charmed to learn, pushing a political vector beyond the limits of its most impossible attributes, that making solar panels in the US at costs higher than what the Chinese can do is sound, uplifting and a necessary part of our energy policy. This was the right way to waste $500,000,000 dollars we learn. Silly us! We thought we were cheated.

The NYT often conjures the theoretical basis for their hokums[2] from ancient, decaying Marxist precepts and then crafts the product with a curious blend of rote propaganda[3][4][5][6] elements and other dollops of political blather. As is proper in the construction of propaganda pieces that display literary elements only slightly above cartoons or latrine wall advertisements, we start with a disparate analogy:

[How to best read my blogs: I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com]

Let us follow the bouncing ball as we sing praises:

First Propaganda Element: A meaningless comparison:

“For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.”[7]-- Here Comes the Sun By PAUL KRUGMAN, November 6, 2011 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

This goad is typical of political agitators. They claim that those who protest for more such energy sources have authentic reasons for their sorry position. We should not blame the government for anything unless we put it back on Ronald Reagan. Moore’s Law has nothing to do with most products and services. If this law was general, then by now an original $10,000 dollar diamond encrusted Rolex watch might now sell for pennies a ton as cutting the highest ever selling price in half every 18 months since 1915 [64 instances] would have predicted a price of only $1.22 each by 1934 and you could buy a million of them for less than a dollar by 1965. But, imaginary numbers are the base skill for many who convince others that they are economists or have done great things. [8][9] It is a process whereby suckers can be hooked by the most elementary trolling methods. And, it works. Many people want such gifts and want to believe.

There are other views:

“ScienceDaily (Feb. 22, 2008) — Despite increasing popular support for solar photovoltaic panels in the United States, their costs far outweigh the benefits, according to a new analysis by Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute.”[10]-- Cloudy Outlook For Solar Panels: Costs Substantially Eclipse Benefits, Study Shows [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

“At the time of this writing, the installed cost of solar panels runs between $7 to $9 per watt, so a 5 kW system would cost on the order of $35,000-$45,000 and an 8 kW system would be anywhere from $56,000 to $72,000. Many utility companies are offering incentives with some subsidizing as much as 50% of the cost of the system. Even so, a system that generates an average of $73 of electricity per month would take a long time to pay for itself even if you could get it at half cost. For example, a system that cost $18,000 would have a payback period on the order of 20 years. The panel cost today is around $4 per watt and the extra cost that brings it up to $7 to $9 installed is to cover the installation labor and the electronics needed to tie it into your existing electrical system.”[11]-- How much does it cost to install solar on an average US house?

But, let us attack the messengers:

“If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.”--Here Comes the Sun

After reading Al Gore, Mike Mann and Phil Jones, I fit in here.[12] As if there is no rabid-dog grade lobby such as the gooney Sierra Club!

A business view:

“Solyndra's business model made no sense -- it was trying to sell solar panels at prices well above the market rate”[13]--What Is the Real Solyndra Scandal? By Charles Gasparino, 9/25/11 03:40 PM ET [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

Some history of Spain’s self-destruction with solar panels[14] from a previous blog:

“Abstract: Well-meaning but idiotic government workers in Spain subsidized a hopeless solar power project that is now essentially worthless. The cost was astronomical and the government is now withdrawing the subsidies as even the most dedicated leftist can work the numbers and see that this project is terminal and will never work out. This is a classic debt-driven asset bubble formation folly and now it comes crashing down in disgrace. Clumsy excuses are offered for this mess by the Times and we are encouraged to hear that the government regulators in Spain are still ‘learning’ how to subsidize a worthless project. Maybe some of them can rush over to California and show them some new tricks before that state crashes in debt.”[15]

But, our hero continues on:

“But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.”-- Here Comes the Sun

For these numbers, I wonder how close, in political terms, 50% is to 7%? Close? Exact?? Given that Krugman pretends at Econ, referencing, boldly, Econ 101,[16] then where were the supply and demand factors that forced prices lower? Why was Solyndra not able to compete? Ignorance? Not manufacturing cost savings as they routinely fly to the bottom line thus to profits. Nor demand because if solar cell prices fall to 1% of their current value, or that price when Solyndra started this charade, I will buy 7 or 8 and give free energy to my neighbors. The FACT is that Solyndra was not competitive, a concept alien to liberals. Look at the last paragraph here for proof.

Summing up:

“So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we’re willing to let it in.”-- Here Comes the Sun

I can imagine the growth of encrusted drool on the shoes of the average progressive as they salivate over this wonderful deal. And green too!!

Here is a commercial home solar panel cost calculator for the interested to diddle with. Here is their pitch:

“Before we are able to design a system we have to know:

• How many kilowatt hours a month you use currently. This information can be found on your electric bill.

• Where you live. (so we can estimate how many hours a day the sun shines.)

• Where you will be able to install the panels. (A south facing roof is best.)

• How much of your electric bill you can afford to offset with solar.

With Wholesale Solar’s current pricing (November 2011), a medium sized gridtie system that generates about 692 kWh a month would cost about $11,052 BEFORE the 30% federal tax credit and rebates offered by your state or utility company. This particular system includes twenty two 230 watt solar panels and IronRidge racking. The Federal tax credit would take the cost down to $6,482.70. This price does not include installation, which varies tremendously by locale. Take a look at tax incentives for your state.”[17] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes]

I pay 14 cents per kWh and my local dealer [Home Depot] said I could save a maximum of $500 per year if I bought one with costs running about $15,000. Taking the numbers above we can start at $6,482.70 plus installation. [?? How much is that??] If the installation was free then to break even with my solar panel savings I would have to wait to break even for 6482/500 or 12.96 years. This is for cash so we can ignore finance costs. Then there is maintenance! What gizmo runs maintenance free for 13 years?

This is so pitiful. And, the worst part is that some ‘citizens’ actually believe this rubbish. That is why [1] we are broke, our debt now being 100% of our GDP and [2] we elect morons to positions in government who believe every jot and tittle printed in the New York Times. What we need is a Moore’s law’ in government.

rycK


[1] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.

“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

[2] A new plural of this word.

[11] How much does it cost to install solar on an average US house? http://solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/

[15] Spain’s Solar Energy Bubble Bursts. California is Next. The First of a Series of GanGreen Asset Bubbles Bursting.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/10/spain%e2%80%99s_solar_energy_bubble_bursts_california_is_next_the_first_of_a_series_of_gangreen_asset_bubbles_bursting.thtml

Two links appear here:

“PUERTOLLANO, Spain — Two years ago, this gritty mining city hosted a brief 21st-century gold rush. Long famous for coal, Puertollano discovered another energy source it had overlooked: the relentless, scorching sun.” --Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun By Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times, Published: March 8, 2010 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

“Soon, Puertollano, home to the Museum of the Mining Industry, had two enormous solar power plants, factories making solar panels and silicon wafers, and clean energy research institutes. Half the solar power installed globally in 2008 was installed in Spain”-- Solar Industry Learns Lessons


Ref: Cloudy Outlook For Solar Panels: Costs Substantially Eclipse Benefits, Study Shows http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&newwindow=1&q=costs+and+efficiency+of+solar+power&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[16] I wonder if he took this course 101 times?

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, October 21, 2011

Friedman of the NYT Imagines America and Stumbles into Reality [for a brief while]

Friedman of the NYT Imagines America and Stumbles into Reality [for a brief while]

Abstract: Thomas L. Friedman of the New York makes some rare sense in one of his recent op-eds. This too shall pass.

To begin:

We are mostly annoyed by the political essays slickly embedded in sausage-machine grade propaganda pieces that are proffered to be authentic [or at least sincere] but which seem to magically blend in with most all the previous erstwhile rants published in the Walter Duranty Papers[1][2]—aka [the near-bankrupt] New York Times. Most of the time the scribbling that appear on the OPINION section is a hash of unfettered rants that create trash and unreasonable rubble upon the sidewalks of NY C. The notion that the Times is ‘fair’ or objective is pushed to the outer limits of ridiculousness by crafting frequent, careful fabrications of highly effective propaganda pieces[3][4][5][6][7] and other blends of sheer nonsense. In rare times, they make some very good points. Most of this is sausage-machine drivel and rusty boilerplate.

How to best read my blogs:

[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]

Consider Thomas L. Friedman’s piece of Oct 11, 2011:

“After spending last week talking with Hong Kong entrepreneurs about a bill, just passed by the U.S. Senate, to clear the way for tariffs on Chinese exports to America if China doesn’t revalue its currency, there are three things I have to say. One, I really hope the people pushing this bill do not give up. Two, I really hope the people pushing this bill do not succeed. And, three, I really hope no one thinks this legislation will make any sustainable dent in our unemployment problem, which requires much more radical rethinking.”[8]--- Imagined in America By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST Published: October 18, 2011

There is much information here and the apparent contradictory comments are surprising valid at this time. Tariffs do contribute to trade wars although the US gets stuck with direct and indirect tariffs all the time as in the Mexican Case and elsewhere. In the Great Depression, such tariffs the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930[9] put up high tariffs on some imported 20,000 trade items and started a trade war that cut our exports in half. The unemployment rate then went from 9% to the mid-twenties by the third year after this blunder.

This was a complex era and we cannot put full blame on this Act for all of it. Today, many countries employ such protection factors in direct and mostly indirect ways. Japanese car imports, for example in the 60s and 70s, were required to undergo a close inspection of the paint and no American car could meet the specifications so each car had to be repainted. France pulled a similar stunt when VHS tape players were first introduced by requiring that ALL such products be ‘inspected’ in some tiny postal location in an obscure town in Central France with only a handful of people to process thousands. These were tariffs by bottleneck.

He elaborates:

“I support this legislation in theory because China needs a wake-up call.” --- Imagined in America By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

“China is spending tons of money manipulating its currency downward and, in the process, creating domestic inflation and a real estate bubble, which is weakening its competiveness.” --- Imagined in America By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

“But, Lord in heaven, do not let the House pass this bill. That would trigger a trade war in the middle of our Great Recession” --- Imagined in America By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

These reasons are all reasonable, but the Big Whammy comes in the next comment:

“We are never going to get those labor-intensive assembly jobs back from China — the wage differentials are far too great, no matter how much China revalues its currency. We need to focus on multiplying more people at the high-value ideation and orchestration end of the supply chain, and in the manufacturing processes where one person can be highly productive, and well paid, by operating multiple machines. We need to focus on “Imagined in America” and “Orchestrated From America” and “Made in America by a smart worker using a phalanx of smarter robots.”--- Imagined in America By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Somebody at the NYT finally comes leaping off the stogy notion that greedy corporations deliberately pushed jobs to Asia in some kind of reflexive fit of greed and insouciance and now revel in the misery of the high American unemployment rate. They refuse to understand capitalism. [10]

Labor costs control prices ultimately:

Given some widget to be made where the global price is firmly fixed by markets while the cost of materials and as such are very close in total production costs, which is the case now in the world, the labor costs tend to dominate and fix the physical location of production of many products. Competition thus tends to force profits to zero [or negative] for a given labor cost level for production of a given widget at a fixed price. The sale price of any item that requires one hour of labor and might be constructed anywhere in various parts of the world with differential costs of say $35/hr [US] or $12/hr in Japan or $7/hr in India or $4 in Viet Nam or even $2 in Indonesia or Africa is clearly controlled by such costs. Thus, there is a sliding scale whereby low labor costs become the only dominating profit vector. This effect forces nations with high labor costs to make things that are either very expensive or have little labor input. Items and services that they cannot make pass to mostly emerging nations and they are stacked up in proportion to how low their labor and costs turn out. Once labor costs dominate a product then those jobs pass away never to return. When the labor costs become competitive then secondary costs[11] like energy[12] [13]or taxes or regulations tend to dominate. He avoids his usual comments on how Washington is trying to crush our domestic oil business.[14][15]

Strange:

“But we also need to stop thinking that a middle class can be sustained only by factory jobs. Thirty years ago, Hong Kong was a manufacturing center. Now its economy is 97 percent services. It has adjusted so well that this year the Hong Kong government is giving a bonus of $775 to each of its residents. One reason is that Hong Kong has transformed itself into a huge tourist center that last year received 36 million visitors — 23 million from China.” --- Imagined in America

I was in Hong Kong in 1966-1968 several times and noted how efficient workers were. They could fabricate numerous items in small shops and create excellent food on the sidewalks or in auto parking places that were cleared out after a fix time in the afternoon. They were willing to wrap themselves in rags and descend into our ship’s fuel bunkers to scrub out the insoluble remains of oil.

Off onto the blue now:

“Another idea officials here offer is that the United States invites Chinese firms to invest in toll bridges, toll roads, and rail systems across the United States, in partnership with American companies. They could build them, and operate them for a set number of years, until their investment pays out, and then transfer them to full U.S. ownership. It may be the only way we can rebuild our infrastructure.” --- Imagined in America

Friedman wanders off into the wilderness on this one. Why should China build mundane structures and roads here or in London or Paris when they have the same ideas in mind to expand their own country and give employment to a mere 500 million or more people?

The author winds up with this summary:

“Yes, China manipulates its currency and market access. But the reason we are so vulnerable is that we have no leverage. We don’t save; we overconsume; we don’t plan; and we have not invested enough in infrastructure and education. Dealing with a superpower like China without leverage? Let me know how that works out for you.” --- Imagined in America

Our hero then addresses structural defects in our society and economic system but glosses over some defects by calling for more of the same. Investing in infrastructure[16] is essential where we have poor roads or bridges that need repair and maintenance. I think Friedman extends this too far to insist that we add in light rail and other follies just for the sake of ‘creating jobs’ and to encourage people not to buy cars. Most infrastructure projects are government funded and union[17] mandated workers by law. He carefully avoids the solar panel mess[18] and how it wrecked Spain’s economy.[19] He avoids the phony Carbon Tax Follies[20] or the phony Bloom fuel cells.[21] He ignores the frightful mess that EU is in with their mindless spending. [22]

He misses an opportunity to examine ‘education’[23][24] in the US in terms of matching people ultimately with jobs. He neglects to mention that half the US high school students never graduate and also half the college students. There is some myth in liberalism that states, in effect: you can choose any career you wish and expect to get a job in that area when you graduate. The difficulty with this is obvious with the number of unemployed history majors, biologists and other fields. He is silent on the failure of GM. [25][26] He carefully avoids the Global Warming Follies as well. [27]

Friedman is making some progress in realizing that the progressive view of how to run a society has failed.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com


[2] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.

“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

[8] Imagined in America By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST Published: October 18, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/opinion/imagined-in-america.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[22] The British Left Now Hail the Expert Advice of Keynesian Economists: Spend More and More. New Political Support for California’s Spending Revealed.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/02/19/the_british_left_now_hail_the_expert_advice_of_keynesian_economists_spend_more_and_more_new_political_support_for_california%e2%80%99s_spending_revealed.thtml

[23] The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Insanely Races to Liberal Sanity with Our Tax Monies in Education. Pay Raises for Incompetent Teachers!

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/07/the_babbling_brooks_of_the_nyt_insanely_races_to_liberal_sanity_with_our_tax_monies_in_education_pay_raises_for_incompetent_teachers!.thtml

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)