Obama's Job Fetish

Beware any politician who promises to create new jobs

Despite all the facile comparisons between the current economic situation and the conditions that preceded the Great Depression, the most recent figures show GDP continuing to grow, with unemployment at a historically modest 6.1 percent. But if, as widely expected, Barack Obama faces a recession when he takes office in January, many Americans will expect him to deliver on his promise to "create jobs."

They probably will be disappointed, because Obama seems to view job creation not only as something the government does with taxpayers' money but as an end in itself. That's a recipe for wasteful spending that will divert resources from more productive uses and ultimately result in lower employment than would otherwise occur.

Obama says he will "transform the challenge of global climate change into an opportunity to create 5 million new green jobs," which he likens to the economic activity triggered by the personal computer. This way of looking at climate change is a variation on the broken window fallacy, according to which the loss caused by a smashed window is offset by the employment it gives the glazier.

By the same logic, Obama should view war, crime, and hurricanes as opportunities to create jobs. All three generate economic activity, but we'd be better off if the resources spent on bombs, burglar alarms, and reconstruction were available for other purposes, instead of being used to inflict, prevent, or recover from losses.

Likewise, overhauling manufacturing, transportation, and power production to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide may or may not be justified, but it is properly viewed as a drag on the economy. We'd be better off if we didn't have to worry about, and use resources to minimize, climate change.

Obama wants to spend $150 billion on "developing and deploying advanced energy technologies, including solar, wind and clean coal." He says this plan "will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs that can't be outsourced."

Leaving aside the desirability of "energy independence" and the merits of Obama's approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions (which has the government, rather than businesses, picking the most efficient methods), the fact that he lists "jobs that can't be outsourced" as a distinct goal is troubling. Paying people to dig holes and fill them in again also creates "jobs that can't be outsourced," but that doesn't mean it's a smart investment or an appropriate use of taxpayers' money.

Speaking of digging holes, Obama also wants to spend $60 billion to "provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation." He says "these projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity."

Fixing a bridge, widening a highway, or building a light rail system may or may not make economic sense. But the fact that it involves paying people to operate jackhammers and pour concrete does not make it any more worthwhile. If creating jobs and stimulating "new economic activity" can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with empty airports and bridges to nowhere?

Obama also sees regulation as an engine of economic growth. He says requiring that "25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025...has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs." Even if true, that projection tells us nothing about the advisability of such a mandate. If the government required that 25 percent of cars be replaced by horse-drawn carriages, that also would create certain jobs, while destroying or forestalling others.

Obama's job fetish is apparent even when he talks about spontaneous economic activity. "Businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs," he declared in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. In a free market, businesses exist because they provide goods or services that people value. A business that makes job creation its overriding goal will not be employing anyone for long.

© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Let's see...

    Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Hulk, She-Hulk, Green Hornet...

    That's only like five green jobs.

  • Turtles||

    I would like to see Elevator Operators again. Maybe he could mandate the creation of those jobs.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Just as government never creates wealth - it merely redistributes it, government never creates jobs - it's merely redistributes them.

  • ||

    Government, the lender and employer of last resort.

  • rhywun||

    If creating jobs and stimulating "new economic activity" can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with empty airports and bridges to nowhere?



    To be fair, the state of the country's existing infrastructure is rather inadequate. Start with thousands of bridges in danger of collapse. Continue with a transit system like NY's that regularly collapses after a couple inches of rain. And how many times do you yourselves complain about desperately-needed road projects being shot down in favor of transit?

  • ||

    I hope that Senator Obama realizes that it's not easy being green.

  • kinnath||

    I hope that Senator Obama realizes that it's not easy being green.

    Thanks for that one.

  • ||

    Government, the...employer of last resort

    *squirms uncomfortably*

  • ||

    doom
    DoooM
    DOOOOM

  • bob||

    This article seems very bias to me. Is it a reflection that Reason is a Republican entity? I hope Reason can come up with a equally negative article about John McCains ideas, if he actually has some.

    Major refoms are needed in healthcare and education. They both need to be free for, at least the lowest 60% of working Americans. This alone would create many jobs, simply by making it possible for those you know to work less, give up that second or third job.

  • ||

    Bob,

    I can't speak on Reason's behalf -- nor would they want me to -- but I can say Reason is not toting the Republican Party line. If you've ever read any of Matt Welch's writings on John Sidney McCain III, you'd know that.

    I say this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but John McCain will potentially creates jobs in order to address the "transcendent challenge our time." With more wars in the future and 100 more years in Iraq its hard to tell where the troop numbers will come from. Perhaps conscription? (Read: Excellent career opportunities available in far, exotic places. No college education required. Must be able to work well with others.)

  • ||

    "They both need to be free for, at least the lowest 60% of working Americans."

    What are you talking about? First, if you make things free, people over use them. Free healthcare for all sounds great until the system is overrun by everyone running to the doctor for every ailment no matter how small. Hey, it is free isn't it? To prevent that you have to have bureaucrats ration out the care as opposed to the market. Either way you end up with the UK where people wait months or years to get basic care.

    Further, from a fairness standpoint, why the hell should someone earning the median income in this country be entitled to "free healthcare and education". Shouldn't they have to pay some of their way to? It is not like being average means you are poor.

  • Other Matt||

    This article seems very bias to me.

    Holy shit, is this a joke? Where have you been with the incessant "rah rah Obama!" articles over the past few months? On the whole, Reason has had an unnatural obamafetish for many months, and only once he actually seems to be a solid frontrunner do you see a slight air of "what have I done?" with articles such as this.

    As for what have people done, you bought it, you name it. I find it amazing that people say "I don't like this about Obama, but he won't really do that..." but then think "I like this about him, and he will really do that..." What will happen is most probably that he'll do what they don't like, and don't do what they're counting on him to do, and there will always be someone else to blame.

  • ||

    "A business that makes job creation its overriding goal will not be employing anyone for long."

    They will, at least as long as the public coffers keep paying for it.
    They tried that in Europe, are still trying it: Mandate recycling and make it "economical" by subsidising the recycling facilities. Paying productive people to retire at 60, to create job openings. Despite that job creation, they still have high unemployment and higher taxes and are still broke.
    What gets me is the inexterminable belief by so many, uncluding the candidates, that somebody else ought to pay for ..(fill in promise/program/desire du jour). The level of economic delusion is truly staggering.
    For my part, I'd finally like to figure out how to get a big slice of all that dough. If you can't change 'em, join 'em.
    Any pointers, comrades?

  • ||

    It is an interesting social experiment the Democrats are trying to run if you take them at their word. The idea seems to be that anyone making less that 250K or some other arbitrary number will pay no taxes and the few that make more than this will pay all of the taxes. If we really had a limited government, this would not be necessarily a bad way to run things. Money does have diminishing marginal utility. It takes a lot of marginal taxes to get people to stop working and investing in order to avoid taxes. Further, we are a lot wealthier than we used to be. It may be that you really could run a limited government, say pre-Great Society size, by only taxes people making over 250K a year and still keep marginal taxes low enough not to destroy incentive. The liberals' idea is that they can sell social programs as long as the majority of voters don't have to pay for them and they can also sell "tax cuts for the middle class" at the same time.



    The problem is of course that we don't have a limited government. I don't think you can have all of our social and regulatory programs and only tax the very wealthiest people. Since you run up against the Lauffer curve, there is a limit to how much you can actually get out of a certain class of people. Worse, how do you maintain any kind of fiscal stability when the vast majority of people are getting something for nothing? I don't see how you stop this. Is it really going to be the case that the Republicans are going to run on fiscal responsibility and making everyone pay their fair share rich or poor? It strikes me as a recipe for financial and economic collapse if taken to an extreme.

  • ||

    Reason magazine, I see, does not care about glaziers! Well I care about glaziers!

  • ||

    To be fair, the state of the country's existing infrastructure is rather inadequate.

    Yeah, but nobody gets to put their name on a bridge they just repair. Ergo, no funding for repairs, and lots of funding for new bridges, needed or not.

  • concerned observer||

    That's right, if a job is created by the government then it is evil. Evil! EEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIILLL!
    Let us pray.
    Oh Market, who giveth all and may rightfully taketh all.
    Please, in your infinite mercy, show us the way to striketh down the Obama.
    Who blasphemeth you at all times.
    And please send us messiah John Galt,
    Whose coming hath been fortold by the great prophet Ayn Rand that ye may smiteth the poor and weak so that only we, the proud few, may inherit the earth.
    Amen.

  • Eric Hanneken||

    Jacob Sullum is picking on Barack Obama here, but he could have written this article about almost any other politician. I see the jobs fetish as an example of a more general obsession with maximizing things that usually correlate with prosperity, but aren't necessarily related.

    Another example is the consumer spending fetish. Politicians and journalists take it for granted that if the government could just get people to keep buying stuff at a sufficient pace, then we will all be better off than we would be if "consumer spending slowed." But buying something only makes a consumer better off if the product is worth more than what he gives up to acquire it. If producers are making too many of the wrong things (like, I don't know, houses), then consumers should reduce their spending and businesses should fail, retrench, and make new guesses about what would really make people better off. Sometimes the correct answer is nothing, because spenders ought to reduce their present consumption and increase their savings.

  • concerned observer||

    But jobs are good for people. This is madness!
    Libertarian: Madness...No...This is REASON!
    THis is probablly how most libertarians think of themselves.

  • concerned observer||

    @Eric Hanneken-You're drawing a false parallel. The jobs Obama would create would be in long-term investments like infrastructure healthcare and education and as such would contribute to the future growth of the economy. Not that you would care, since if it is funded by taxpayers then it is evil.

  • ||

    "Eric Hanneken-You're drawing a false parallel. The jobs Obama would create would be in long-term investments like infrastructure healthcare and education and as such would contribute to the future growth of the economy. Not that you would care, since if it is funded by taxpayers then it is evil."

    We spend a large portion of our GDP on healthcare, education already. Is your position that we don't spend enough? Did we spend the early 1990s argueing that we were paying too much for healthcare? Indeed, we spend more per capita on education than nearly any nation on earth. Is there any point at which eduation spending becomes counter productive?

    What Obama is doing is taking money from the private sector and spending it on those things. Just like every dime the government takes and spends on a tank is one less dollar the public can spend on a refrigerator, every dollar Obama takes and spends on government run healthcare and education is one less dollar the public can spend on other priorities.

  • ||

    That's only like five green jobs.



    Leondardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Raphael bring the total to nine.


    In all seriousness, I've recently thrown some money at an Alt Energy Exchange Traded Fund in anticipation of the great messiah of hope and change's eminent victory.

  • concerned observer||

    We spend more on these things but it is not distributed correctly. Rich suburbanite brats get the lion's share of our education money, wealthy doctors and pharma companies plunder the healthcare budget.

  • concerned observer||

    No answer to that JOhn? Oh, I get it. Now you're going to go sulk in your rightwing closet and pray to Ronald Reagan to deliver your country from the evil Democrats.

  • concerned observer||

    Seriously everything posted here is a joke. Its almost like you people don't live in the real world. YOu shut out any view that contradicts yours but latch on to the few things that seem to occasionally agree with you. I'm sorry that your lives are so sad that you have to torture yourselves like this every single day.

  • ||

    Your concern is duly noted.

    However, I'd like to cordially invite you to engage in an act of carnal knowledge with yourself.

  • Windypundit||

    A politician who believes the broken windows fallacy? That's so man-bites-dog.

  • rhywun||

    The idea seems to be that anyone making less that 250K or some other arbitrary number will pay no taxes and the few that make more than this will pay all of the taxes.



    Jesus Christ, John; you tell a lot of whoppers around here, but I can't let this one slide.

    Nowhere has Obama said anything like what you're claiming here. Where has Obama called for an end to sales tax for people under 250K? Property tax? FICA? The fact is, he called for an end to the Bush income tax cuts which would raise it a couple percentage points to where it was under Clinton. Why not argue the merits or lack of what he's actually proposed rather than the fantasy Democrat in your head?

  • ||

    We spend more on these things but it is not distributed correctly.

    Maybe the government should step in and make sure it is distributed correctly.

  • Geoff||

    What if the government invests in the wrong green technology/infrastructure, which is very likely?

    Will the government continue to invest in the inept technology in order to keep those jobs alive? Will they put laws in place that would create a barrier to entry in the market? Would better alternative technologies be forced to hire these people if they lose their jobs again? Furthermore, would unionization of these companies limit their efficiency and prevent the technologies from reaching the market in a timely manner?

    Fear & panic tends to keep many American's from asking sound questions. They instead continue to cling to their idols.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Seriously everything posted here is a joke."

    Then why do you keep showing up here?

    Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

  • ||

    Concerned observer reminds me of Ms. Piggy...always trying to control Kermit...never getting it right; self-righteous pig. Can we use this whole comment board in reference to a Jim Henson creation please? I'm a big fan of the chef, I'd like to party with him.

  • rhywun||

    Yeah, but nobody gets to put their name on a bridge they just repair. Ergo, no funding for repairs, and lots of funding for new bridges, needed or not.



    Politicians' egos aside, have we learned nothing from that little disaster in Minneapolis? Y'know, the one that prompted alarm bells about the disastrous state of our infrastructure? Oh, that was before Sarah Palin. Well, the bridges can wait. Until the fall down.

  • rhywun||

    "they"

  • Bill_in_NYC||

    Rhywun: Nowhere has Obama said anything like what you're claiming here. Where has Obama called for an end to sales tax for people under 250K? Property tax? FICA?

    Oh. I didn't know that Obama would become dictator of the nation with the ability to tell state and local gov't that they should cut their sales and property taxes. Well thank goodness he is going to ALLOW them to continue to collect their taxes. What a generous dictator he will be.

  • ||

    Bill, RTFP

  • ||

    Rywyn,

    You miss the point. If you take Obama's points at face value, he wants to cut taxes to everyone making under 250K a year and give refunds to people who already don't pay income taxes. The idea is that the vast majority of people should pay nothing to the federal government or at most FICA and Medicare but no income taxes while those making above some arbitrary figure will pay lots to the federal government.

    That is an interesting tax experiment and not necessarily a bod one if we had a limited government. The issue is what happens when the majority of the people are not paying any income taxes and no longer have any incentive to worry about spending. Further, what about the fairness implications of large numbers of people getting any number of free government services at the expense of a small minority? When the majority are parasites, how long will it take to kill the host?

    Get your head out of your ass and think a little bit. Not every post is some partisian shot. Some of them actually make points to consider.

  • fyodor||

    Obama seems to want to return us to the mainstream liberalism of the sixties. I remember Hubert Humphrey saying we needed a domestic equivalent to the Marshall Plan (setting aside whether the Marshall Plan was as responsible for Germany's postwar recovery as popularly believed, at least it wasn't the Germans who had to pay for it!). Expect a lot of waste and inflation and we'll learn our lesson again, only to forget it again when a slightly freer economy doesn't bring Nirvana...

  • ||

    wealthy doctors and pharma companies plunder the healthcare budget.

    And it's all the *libertarians'* fault.

  • rhywun||

    There is a vast difference between

    cut taxes to everyone making under 250K and give refunds to people who already don't pay income taxes



    and

    the vast majority of people should pay nothing to the federal government



    One does not follow from the other. You're inventing positions that no Democrat has advocated.

  • Barack Obama||

    See, we're going to have 2.5 million people paid for running around breaking windows, and the other 2.5 million will follow them around repairing the windows. This will create eocnomic growth.

  • Barack Obama||

    And, of course, the offering of broken glass will placate Gaia, thus causing the oceans to recede and sparing all our lives.

    I mean, really, it would be stupid of us not to do it.

  • FICA||

    FYI -- the Earned Income Tax Credit was specifically intended to offset FICA.

    FICA, amusingly, is not even supposed to be a tax, which is why it has what would otherwise be a horribly regressive phase-out at higher income levels. It's supposed to be a mandatory savings plan, which is why you get those letters from the government telling you if you've put in enough to receive benefits.

    Of course, with Obama's plan FICA is now just another welfare scheme by which people who never paid any taxes can receive money from those that do. It's just way, way, bigger than the other schemes.

    In another 20 years, when they start means-testing, the transfer will become completely one-way.

  • ||

    Job fetish is probably the right character for this folly of designed fallacy.

    Jobs are not created by Presidents.

    Money is taken from taxpayers, or borrowed from overseas to give to business or government agencies to create jobs or make-work.

    Since all jobs went overseas, make-work, the equivalent of the WPA is about all that is left to America.

    That Obama or any President elected has no avenue to pursue except this one, it's a matter of who you want to tax the taxpayer in order to funnel the money to whomever it shall go. It's all a matter of trust.

  • ||

    Who is this ranting "concerned observer?"

    Everything posted here is a joke? If so, then I assume that's including your own posts too.

    "Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more." Ten Years After

    Then what? By what moral standard is it ok to take money by force from someone who has earned it, and give it to someone who has not?

    "Half the world gives, while the other half takes." Neil Peart, Rush

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "See, we're going to have 2.5 million people paid for running around breaking windows, and the other 2.5 million will follow them around repairing the windows. This will create eocnomic growth."

    Don't be silly.

    That will not create nearly enough economic growth in a nation of 300 million people.

    What we need is Obama's "national service" army to form a bucket brigade across the country from the Pacific to Altantic to transfer seawater from one ocean to the other to keep those sea levels in the proper balance.

  • ||

    There is a vast difference between
    cut taxes to everyone making under 250K and give refunds to people who already don't pay income taxes
    and
    the vast majority of people should pay nothing to the federal government"


    No there isn't. In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. ... [T]his will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

    That is nearly a majority of people not paying any income tax under Obama's plan. Where is the tipping point of parasites killing the host?

  • Kaiser||

    I hear a lot of people talking about "fairness." How it is only fair that rich people pay more and poor people get things for free. This is absolute ludicrous. For one thing that is not "fair," to me that is a kin to saying "we need to tax black people because they are black, or lets tax gays because they are gay." Taxing someone more just because they worked hard and earn more money than you do isn't remotely close to "fair." The other problem I have is that life isn't fair and it shouldn't be. If you work hard you will be rewarded, if you are a lazy fuck who expects government handouts, you won't amount to anything in life.

    For all the faults in this country we are still one of the freest societies in the world. The ability to acquire wealth in this country is amazing. Just as an example there was a local kid here who was in the paper recently. His parents died when he was very young. He moved in with his grandfather who was already retired at the time and had a very low income. This kid worked flipping burgers for 2 years and saved every penny he could. That was 4 years ago, today this kid is worth well over a million dollars because of real estate investments. This is just one example of situations that happen every day in this country.

  • ||

    I think the photo put American presidential politics in perspective. We tend to vote for the guy who will be our superman, the solution to our problems. Of course people like me don't want a fed that active.

    """No there isn't. In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. ... [T]his will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

    That is nearly a majority of people not paying any income tax under Obama's plan. Where is the tipping point of parasites killing the host?"""

    Don't you mean the majority of people eligible to vote, since that criteria was in your first paragraph?

    And Bush Sr. said "read my lips, no new taxes."

    How easy we forget that talk prior to the election is pretty much BS just the get a vote. The bottom line is that the fiscal situation will dictate how the next president handles taxes. After 8 years of fiscal irresponsiblity, I'm betting the next prez will raise taxes regardless of who gets elected.

  • ||

    Is it a reflection that Reason is a Republican entity?

    Bwahahahahahahah!!!!

  • ||

    Expect a lot of waste and inflation and we'll learn our lesson again, only to forget it again when a slightly freer economy doesn't bring Nirvana...

    fyodor wins

  • john lichtenstein||

    Mediageek watch out with the alt-energy stocks. A CEO who pitches a business of energy wasteful welfare farming "green energy" can hardly be expected to deal any more fairly with his shareholders than his shareholders expect him to treat the taxpayers.

  • Tom James||

    What the writer is missing vis a vis the broken window fallacy is that regardless of your feelings about it windows will get broken.

    Right now anthropogenic climate change is a problem that needs solving, and the free market has failed to provide a viable alternative to coal, oil, and gas (largely, it has to be admitted, because of perverse government incentivisation in the form of subsidies for biofuels and too-stringent regulation on nuclear power).

    What Obama is doing is classic politics: he's taking a bad thing (anthropogenic climate change) and chaching it in positive terms for the electorate so that he gets elected.

  • MJ||

    "Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Hulk, She-Hulk, Green Hornet...

    That's only like five green jobs."

    You underestimate. Green Lantern is a title, not one person, and there's thousands of them. Hell, there's about a half dozen of them who are human.

  • rob||

    In response to bob:

    they need to do way instain mother> who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who had kill her three kids . they are taking the three babby back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots

  • ||

    Rob: I peel your fain.

  • Jesse||

    Investing in alternative energy is a good thing.

    It's only $15 billion a year. That's very little in the gov't budget

    He's hoping this gets private investment too.

    And his big idea is Cap and Trade, a market-friendly approach.

  • ||

    concerned observer | October 22, 2008, 10:49am | #

    Let us pray.
    Oh Market[...]only we, the proud few, may inherit the earth.
    Amen.



    Whilst his protests about not being an alter ego of another well-known poster grow more shrill....

    Someone help me out, my recall is weak. I used to remember a frequent poster who also authored sarcastic prayers to capitalism....gee, what was his name?

    Edward-Lefiti-Concerned Observer are kind of like Superman and Clark Kent, aren't they?

  • Greg||

    Kaiser has it right. I have never understood why taxing some more than others is fair. If people want to claim that we have some sort of obligation to tax the rich more, well I would disagree, but I can at least understand that. But to claim it is "fair" to tax the rich more is just idiotic.

    If that's the case, we should make the fastest athletes wear weights when they run...it just isn't fair that they are faster...

  • Michael Ejercito||

    WW2 ended the Great Depression because the U.S. government spent a lot of money making weapons, ammunition, equipment, and supplies, which resulted in massive job growth.

    To create jobs, all the government needs to do is buy large quantities of weapons, ammunition, equipment, and supplies.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    First, if you make things free, people over use them. Free healthcare for all sounds great until the system is overrun by everyone running to the doctor for every ailment no matter how small.


    Has that happened?

    People do not choose to get sick simply because health care is free.

  • ||

    I want free health care. I want it badly; because like everyone I want a free heart transplant. There is nothing wrong with my heart today, but I figure if I can get a new one for free, well then what the hell. And after my new heart then I figure, I'll have some work done on my knees. Again there is no problem there now, but there is nothing better than free surgery. I mean if something costs $100,000 today then it must have some great value; therefore I want it. Oh and there is nothing I can think of that I'd rather do, than go see a doctor everyday. I can have my allergies checked and checked and checked, and I can go to a podiatrist and have him look at my healthy feet, and my shoulders need examined, and my ears; and all of the time that I spend in waiting rooms with other sick, and non-sick, people will be just great. I can't wait for free health care. Maybe even I'll get an amputation. It never seemed appealing before, but if its free, I'm gonna just have to do it. It's gonna be great.

  • Michael Ejercito||


    Right now anthropogenic climate change is a problem that needs solving, and the free market has failed to provide a viable alternative to coal, oil, and gas (largely, it has to be admitted, because of perverse government incentivisation in the form of subsidies for biofuels and too-stringent regulation on nuclear power).


    It is a lot easier to deal with anthropogenic climate change by inducing more anthropogenic climate change in the opposite direction.

  • ||

    Right now anthropogenic climate change is a problem that needs solving

    http://spaceweather.com/

    When cycle 24 gets well underway, then we will respond to AGW. Until then I don't think we should be too hasty.

  • ||

    John's idea about taxing only people considered "rich" is actually an intriguing one if looked at in the proper light. It certainly has some implications that would have to be dealt with, but I'm not necessarily sure that it is a violation of libertarian ideals. Considering the diminishing happiness returns off of increasing hoardes of wealth. It would also not reduce incentive to be successful. Then again who should say how much money is enough money other than the person making it? I dunno, seems like it is worth a discussion.

  • ||

    "In a free market, businesses exist because they provide goods or services that people value. A business that makes job creation its overriding goal will not be employing anyone for long."

    obviously he never heard of Henry ford and his business policies of not only paying workers more than average, but also employing them and decreasing turn over, and he was able to make a huge profit.

  • ||

    Chris, if he was making a huge profit, his goal was not job creation. He created jobs, sure, but for a purpose other than creating jobs, and that other purpose (cars) made him profit. Jobs for the sake of jobs makes no sense.

  • Wicks Cherrycoke||

    Sounds to me like the old tired rhetoric we have heard from the Democrats since the New Deal: use government spending to "create jobs." Wasn't Obama supposed to give new policies for a new century? And you can bet that each of these "job creation" programs will require the employment of union labor. The AFL-CIO wants something for its money, after all.

  • ||

    So everyone will get a jumpsuit and a stick with a pointy end?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement