Tag Archives: Economics

News

4Simpsons explains why tariffs turn recessions into depressions

1 Comment

I was browsing around on 4Simpsons, my favorite Christian Living blog, and I found this gem of a video on Neil’s latest round-up of links. I love this blog, because you get solid economics, solid social conservatism and solid apologetics.

Here’s the video:

It features Amity Shlaes, whose voice I find irresistible! And Jagdish Bhagwati, too.

If you are a Christian and you voted for Democrats, please listen to this lecture by Jay Richards on the “Myths Christians Believe about Wealth and Poverty“. When Jay mentions the “Trading Game” and networking theory, I had to study that in grad school e-commerce: “Metcalfe’s Law” and “network externalities”.

If you want to read the book by Henry Hazlitt that he mentions, it’s all posted online here. But I recommend Robert P. Murphy‘s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism” as the best economics book for beginners. Better than Tom Sowell‘s “Basic Economics”? For beginners, yes! Get both, they’re all you need to understand basic economics.

Now, remember how leftist Democrats were always complaining about how much the world hated us because of Bush? Yeah, they didn’t really hate us then, (because they all voted in conservatives themselves!), but they really hate Obama’s trade policies now!

Take a look at what Canadians think of Obama‘s Buy American anti free trade policy: (H/T My best friend, Andrew who has a perfect marriage)

The dire predictions about Buy American are coming true. From pipes and water pumps to steel beams and office furniture, a wide range of Canadian manufacturers are suddenly finding themselves shut out of traditional markets south of the border, according to industry and government officials.

…Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME) has compiled a list of seven pieces of legislation now before Congress that contain overtly protectionist language. They include bills to fund local sewer and water projects, expand broadband access, build smart electrical grids, replace Air Force One, purchase 100,000 hybrid vehicles, and build and renovate government buildings.

…Canadian steel makers and fabricators are feeling the impact of Buy American restrictions, which were inserted into the stimulus bill to appease U.S. steel makers and workers. Companies are losing orders, threatening $1-billion-a-year worth of exports, according to Ed Whalen, president of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction.

Who loses from Americans paying too much for materials and products? Canadian companies and consumers are hurt from lost revenue, so they lay people off and buy less of our stuff. US companies pay more for materials, so they lay people off. US Consumers, who must pay more for products they could have got cheaper. And taxpayers, whose money is wasted by paying too much for government projects.

And who gains from protectionism? Why Obama’s union supporters and donors, that’s who. It’s basically a legal way of rewarding the people who put you in office ,and buying the next election with money confiscated from the productive private sector, i.e. – your boss.

A comprehensive article about Obama’s plans for energy policy, which will really destroy the economy and cost us piles of jobs, is here.

News

Barack Obama’s claim to save or create 150000 jobs falsified by FactCheck.org

Leave a comment

Obama claim that his socialist policies that attack “greedy corporations” and “the rich” are actually increasing employment rates. Now, that seems to be impossible for rational people to believe, and FactCheck.org confirms that intuition. It is not possible for socialist policies such as card check, higher taxes, increased spending, more regulation, etc. to create more jobs than are lost from the changes.

Obama’s claim was:

At President Obama’s April 29 news conference, he claimed that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has “already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.”

That’s what he learned to believe at Harvard in his marxist rap sessions with the radical students and professors.

But how does the world really work?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy lost more than 1.3 million jobs in the two months after he took office, and it has probably lost at least another half-million in April. The day after Obama spoke, the Department of Labor announced that another 631,000 workers (seasonally adjusted) had filed new claims for unemployment insurance the previous week.

So what 150,000 jobs was Obama talking about?

It turns out the president’s claim is really an estimate of what his economic advisers think the stimulus bill is doing, and not based on any evidence of its actual effects.

But how does the White House respond to the falsification of their propaganda by reality?

We asked the White House for substantiation of Obama’s claim, and a spokesman responded that the figure comes from a recent estimate by the Council of Economic Advisers. “Because the baseline for employment is obviously still strongly downward,” the spokesman told us, “the estimate does not mean that employment has risen by 150,000. Rather, it means that employment is 150,000 higher than it otherwise would have been.” He said the figure is an estimate of people hired to work directly on ARRA-funded projects, plus “jobs created by the tax cuts, aid to the states, and other parts of the ARRA.”

So when the president said his stimulus bill “already saved or created” those jobs, he was just giving an estimate produced by his own economic advisers at the White House. Furthermore, the jobs figure is based on projections done at the time ARRA was passed. Recipients of ARRA spending aren’t required to report until later what they’re doing with the money and how well it’s working, so there’s very little hard data on where the money is being spent, let alone how many jobs may have resulted from the legislation. The CEA incorporated some actual spending reports into its estimate, but that information is not complete.

This is the result of voting by people who know more about the lives of celebrities than they know about economics. Imagine how surprised these Democrat voters are to find out that the 1 hour spent voting was not enough time to have thought anything through. Some of them thought that Obama was better on pro-life issues and government spending than McCain for example.

Remember, Democrats caused this recession and Republicans tried to stop it.

Commentary

Why do conservative Catholics support Obama so strongly?

9 Comments

Let’s see what the story is, from Hot Air:

I know I’ve said this before on the site, and I know many devout Catholics’ experiences are different, but having grown up in the Church, there’s nothing here that surprises me. Most Catholics I know treat the Church’s commands as essentially hortatory, to be politely ignored when need be — as in the case of torture — which is why I can’t quite fathom the outrage over a pro-choicer as adamant as The One speaking at Notre Dame. His job approval this month among Catholics is 70 percent, and 65 percent among those who attend church weekly. They’re fighting a losing battle here.

Allahpundit then goes on to quote the findings here:

Even Catholics who consider themselves “conservative” politically are more likely to approve than disapprove of Obama’s job performance [49/40]…

In fact, 53% of Catholics voted for Obama for president in November, almost identical to the 52.9% of the popular vote Obama won in the 2008 election. Catholics’ 67% approval of Obama in his first 100 days is slightly higher than his overall 63% average approval rating for the same period. Thus, relative to the population, Catholics have become a bit more supportive of Obama as president than they were in the election.

This news makes the Wintery Knight sad… so sad, that he is tempted to cry tiny icicle tears.

I am an evangelical Protestant Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible (in the autographs). I think that one of the reasons why evangelical Protestants are more politically conservative than Catholics (and some mainline Protestants) is because there is more emphasis on free market capitalism in evangelical Protestantism.

Evangelical Protestants are also more conservative on the exclusivity of salvation than Catholics are. We believe that salvation is based on knowing God, not on doing good works. I think some Catholic voters are being swayed by Obama’s emphasis on helping the poor, even by government redistribution of wealth. This is also true for mainline Protestants, who seem to be increasingly concerned with social justice instead of economic liberty, and they are also soft on exclusive salvation.

UPDATE: Commenter ECM says that I should not make too much of this poll, because it is done by Gallup and their polls lately have been way off.

UPDATE: And now I’m going to rebut my own post: Pastor Joel Hunter says Obama Displaying “Wisdom and Balance” During First 100 Days. (H/T The Pugnacious Irishman)

Excerpt:

As someone who is completely pro-life (concerned about the vulnerable outside the womb as well as inside the womb), I am encouraged by the vision (and budget) President Obama has cast for empowering those marginalized with the resources they need to become responsible citizens.

…By supporting sex education and contraception, we reduce the number of unexpected pregnancies and thus reduce the likelihood of abortion. Also, by supporting expectant mothers who are feeling pressure to have an abortion because of financial concerns, education interruptions, or the baby having development problems, we again decrease the likelihood and therefore the incidence of abortion.

…Even the overturning of the Mexico City Policy had a pro-life side to it, in that sex education, contraception and family planning almost certainly will decrease the number of abortions performed.”

It’s the social justice that does them in, and I should write something about how social justice suddenly became the main job of the church instead of spreading the Gospel and answering speculations against it. What do you expect when people abandon truth? If religion is about meeting people’s needs, then everybody goes to Heaven and we should all focus on making people feel good about their sins in the here and now.

EVERYBODY: Say it with me: when you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you tax something, you get less of it. Subsidizing pre-marital sex gives you more pre-marital sex, and more accidental pregnancies, and more abortions. Reduce government subsidies and support for risky sex, and you lower the number of abortions.

UPDATE: Maritime Sentry has a much more reliable Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Catholics are more serious about their faith than the flawed Galup poll indicated.