You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
Obama and 'The Wealth of Nations'
2012-07-03
President Obama should put Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" at the top of his summer reading list.
Don't be silly. The man doesn't read, he merely carries around the right sort of books with his finger marking a random page, and the title carefully turned toward the cameras.
This was clear after listening to his 54-minute list of economic excuses and policy proposals delivered earlier this month on the campus of Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland.
The economists he parrots misread Keynes, so no point in going there, either.
At times Mr. Obama suggested that the profit motive is somehow ignoble, an opinion shared by many on the far left. But every student learns in introductory economics class that the pursuit of profits is essential to a successful economy, allocating resources to the use consumers value most.
The honourable gentleman studied got degrees in poly sci and law, not economics, so he missed those intro econ lessons, poor dear.
This is not exactly a new insight. Writing in 1776, Adam Smith noted, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

The president spent nearly an hour demonizing his Republican opponent Mitt Romney's economic policies and doubling down on his own failed agenda. He called for higher taxes on our most productive citizens and successful small businesses, more government spending and debt, and Washington micromanagement of wide swaths of the economy.

Instead of doubling down, Mr. Obama could have seen his party's 2010 midterm defeat as a message from voters to move to the center, announcing that his vast expansion of government was temporary and necessitated by the financial crisis and deep recession.

That's similar to what President Clinton did after his 1994 midterm rebuke that swept Republicans to control of Congress and led to bipartisan agreement to balance the budget and reform welfare. Mr. Clinton won re-election handily.

Here are four things the president could have proposed (but didn't) to remove headwinds to growth and instill confidence in the economy:

1) Avoid the 2013 "fiscal cliff," which the Congressional Budget Office says would put us back in recession, by extending all the Bush tax cuts for one year (leaving him free to pursue his tax hikes on the "rich" later).
He can always do that after he's reelected -- the bill will be popular on both sides of the aisle. And if the voters choose otherwise, the punishment for their temerity will be swift and painful.
2) Approve the Keystone pipeline and speed up oil and gas drilling approvals, with appropriate environmental safeguards, back to the levels they were before the 2010 moratorium following the BP oil disaster.
But before the BP incident, weren't they slow walking the paperwork? How would that be better?
3) Enact long-run entitlement and tax reform with lower rates and a broader base, using the proposals of the Simpson-Bowles Commission--which the president appointed, but has so far ignored--as a starting point for negotiations.

4) Invest political capital to energize the moribund Doha Round of global trade liberalization and bilateral free-trade agreements.

By taking these four steps, the president would have given the recovery a greatly needed boost and encouraged more businesses to invest and hire. He may well look back on this missed opportunity to move toward the middle as the mistake that ultimately cost him re-election.
More likely he will reflect on the stupidity of the voters who completely failed to appreciate his peculiar genius.
Mr. Obama constantly reminds us, with justification, that he inherited a recession. But the recession ended over three years ago, while the recovery has been distressingly anemic. He also blames an "obstructionist" Congress. But Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House his first two years. Republicans couldn't obstruct anything. He's even blamed the Japanese tsunami and the European debt crisis.

Is it any wonder that recent polls show the majority of Americans disapprove of the president's economic policies and are asking why his explosion of spending and debt has done so little good. Mr. Obama claims that when he took office nobody knew just how deep this recession really was. Not so. I and other economists said it was going to be the worst recession in a generation, and immediately after the 2008 election urged him to temporarily set aside his big-government social-engineering agenda, from energy to health-care reform. Whatever their pros and cons, it was the worst possible time to add such a cost burden and uncertainty to the economy. He was mistaken in the hope the economy could withstand his change.

In 2009, 2010 and 2011, the administration forecast average economic growth of 4% in the next two years. But the economy has not had even one quarter of 4% growth during Mr. Obama's stewardship. Rather, our economy has experienced its longest string of consecutive quarters of economic growth below 4% since World War II. Growth has averaged 1.4% in Mr. Obama's first 13 quarters as president.

His record on jobs is just as bad. Mr. Obama's initial forecast claimed unemployment would never reach 8% if his $800 billion stimulus bill passed in early 2009 (as it did) and would now be below 6%. That's off by 3.9 million unemployed workers, millions more if we include those who have given up looking for work.

Perhaps we should not have expected more from the eloquent apostle of hope and change. Mr. Obama had little experience in or respect for the "for profit" part of the economy. Of his one brief sojourn in the business world, he says in his autobiography he felt "like a spy behind enemy lines."

He now says that Mr. Romney's business career--which former President Clinton describes as "sterling"--is not a qualification to be president. How would he know? Before becoming president, he had no executive experience of any kind--private or public.
Ouch.
Mr. Obama's most recent statements reveal a strange disconnect from basic economic reality. In a press conference on June 8 he said, "The private sector is doing fine," adding that we needed more federal spending subsidizing state and local government jobs, where he claims the jobs problem is centered. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 11 unemployed private-sector workers for every unemployed government worker.

Last month Mr. Obama said, "Since I've been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." But it turns out he was quoting a blogger who did not count the massive 2009 stimulus spending. Careful administration fact-checking served former presidents well. Is this administration's standard no longer facts but anything on the Internet?
Double ouch. It doesn't sound like the writer will be voting to reelect the president in November.
Posted by:Beavis

#8  O should read and comprehend "Why Nations Fail." For a start.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2012-07-03 16:43  

#7  The big dude on that show El Cinco, with a straight face said an increase in demand does not lead to an increase in price. Now, this lesson predates ECON101 and goes right back to the playground with kids auctioning gum and such.

Now gordo does not come across as a dummy but is one of them tru believers. It makes me believe the official playbook for business talking points is to just flat out lie to you and fish for enough ignorants and persuadables.

(to be fair, though I hardly watch the show, I had Bob in the head category but turns out he is at least part muppet with that just dipshit statement, way to blow you cred)
Posted by: swksvolFF   2012-07-03 15:55  

#6  Hayek is a good choice for the Champ's summer reading.
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-07-03 09:57  

#5  After "The Wealth of Nations", he should read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".
Posted by: eltoroverde   2012-07-03 09:19  

#4  You won't like all you read in the Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith was a strong proponent of property (Land rent) based taxation.



Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.

— Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses


Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2012-07-03 08:34  

#3  The Champ studied poly sci in college. Poly sci is considered the bonehead curriculum among students. That said, he probably voted "Present" at his classes if he showed up at all. We don't know, he was never really vetted; his college records have not been available. At the time he was getting high with his Choom Gang and being cool. Not so sure that is not still going on. An economist or a capitalist he is not. He does not have a clue about creating jobs for others. He does not understand the U.S. economy. It is foreign to him. He is not about to read the Cliff Notes version of the "Wealth of Nations" or any other book between now and election time. When was the last time the media reported of him reading any books. Most other presidents had stories about them reading this book or that book. Bummer is too busy golfing, gloating, being narcissistic, and running for election. I would contend that he never stopped running for office--that's what he does. He is p!ss poor at governance in a Republic.
Posted by: JohnQC   2012-07-03 07:59  

#2  The reason everybody in Obama's circles believes in socialism is because they have achieved the socialist ideal: to each according to their needs---never mind ability; for themselves.
p.s. They also despise the suckers who pay for it.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2012-07-03 05:22  

#1  Mr. Obama's most recent statements reveal a strange disconnect from basic economic reality.

"Strange" to some possibly, but entirely in keeping with his goal of dissestablishment of The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, of Federalism and the Republic.

"Strange" to some possibly, but entirely in keeping with former [Harvard University professor and Current Obama adminstration official Cass Sunstein, a leading advocate of delinking liberty and property rights - and President Obama's likely future nominee to the Surpreme Court.] Levin, "Liberty and Tyranny" March 2009.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-07-03 03:19  

00:00