Obama Administration: "Who do they think creates jobs?"

The Washington Post's superb economics columnist Robert Samuelson has good column today looking at how Obama White House chief of staff Jack Lew might perform as Secretary of the Treasury. However, what particularly caught my eye in the column was a comment by IHS Global Insight chief economist Nariman Behravesh:

Obama’s anti-business attitudes are politically convenient but economically destructive. As Behravesh puts it: “Who do they [administration officials] think creates jobs? It’s puzzling to me that, when they want jobs, they bad-mouth the private sector. It doesn’t compute.”

Indeed it does not compute. See my colleague Nick Gillespies's post, "Barack Obama and George W. Bush Absolute Worst at Creating Jobs," to see just how diastrously bad for the private sector growth our last two presidents have been.

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.

  • sarcasmic||

    “Who do they [administration officials] think creates jobs? It’s puzzling to me that, when they want jobs, they bad-mouth the private sector. It doesn’t compute.”

    The private sector is motivated by profits, so any jobs it creates are tainted. I mean, the private sector consists of greedy rich capitalists and the peons they exploit. Public sector jobs are morally superior because they derive their funds from extorting those greedy rich capitalists, forcing them to give back to society and pay their fair share.

    Ideally there would be no private sector at all. Everyone would work for the government at the expense of those rich people until all the accumulated wealth was used up.

    Then everyone will be equal.

  • ||

    Sadly, I suspect that is exactly what captain shit-for-brains actually thinks.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Except for the D.C. mandarins and court eunuchs who will still have wine while the rest of us drink Victory Gin.

  • Zeb||

    Don't people who have jobs profit from the situation?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Screw "creating jobs". I want a government that can provide what I want with no exertion from me. But, then again, I like to dream big.

  • sarcasmic||

    /sarc off

    It would be quite a simple matter for the government to help in job creation.

    All it has to do is GET OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY!

    ALLOW PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WITHOUT HAVING TO ASK PERMISSION AND TAKE ORDERS AT EVERY FUCKING TURN!

    FUUUUUUUUCK!

    /sarc on

  • Jeff||

    Fucking control freaks would rather strangle the economy to death with their own two hands than stand back and be able to take credit for it flourishing without them even having to do anything.

  • $park¥||

    You dumbass, can't you see that they know what's best? If people would just stop fighting it, we'd all be in a better country now.

  • califernian||

    To be fair, voters cringe at the idea of freedom. The reason we live in a tyranny is because the majority of voters want tyranny.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    We vote for tyranny because it's either try to grab a little bit of the tyranny for ourselves, or let tyranny roll over us.

    Government intrudes into so much of our lives that the best way to grow a business is to try to influence the government; our competitors are doing so, and we'd be fools to not try it ourselves.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, it amazes me that people don't get this. The best way to improve the economy is to make it easy as possible for people to start businesses or engage in whatever other kind of economic activity they can profit from. It seems like a lot of people believe that the only way for an ordinary person to succeed is to be employed by a large corporation, working 9-5 and getting generous health insurance benefits.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Washington Post's superb economics columnist Robert Samuelson has good column today...

    So then today's column is subpar.

    Why does anyone think Barack Obama would have clue one in private sector job creation? He's never worked in the private sector and has surrounded himself with likewise.

  • ||

    It's not just about private sector job creation. Obama's intelligence may be slightly higher than the median, so 50% of the population assumes that he knows better than they do, on any issue.

  • juris imprudent||

    Who should create jobs - govt approved crony businesses. That way the govt can keep them on a nice tight leash. None of that sloppy market-driven innovation; it upsets our nice orderly little world.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The post below tells you pretty much everything you need to know.

    Government creates jobs specifically intended to prevent and punish any private actor foolish enough to create jobs intended to match willing buyers with willing sellers in defiance of the enlightened guidance of his masters.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Tim Geithner was anti-business? Please. Sorry, dudes, but the real job destroyers have been the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street, who did their level best to destroy the world's economy. Two and a half cheers for capitalism, but watch out for the missing half.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Good thing Geithner kept his distance from those eeeeeeeeeevil Wall Street corporate types.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And it really sucks that those Wall Street masters are forcing companies to reduce all their workers to part-time status starting this month.

  • $park¥||

    Anonbot's comments are always better than the strangeness posted by this thing.

  • ShagNasty||

    Do you guys remember that time that Anal said something that was factually correct and resonable?

    Cause I'm pretty sure I remember that happening once.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alan Vanneman,

    Tim Geithner was anti-business? Please.


    He and his boss are anti-market, Alan. NOT the same thing.

    Sorry, dudes, but the real job destroyers have been the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street, who did their level best to destroy the world's economy.


    Sure, only they have the power to print money.

    Jesus, what an imbecile you are.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Great- on Varney's show right now, they are having a debate about whether the NCAA should allow schools to pay their athletes. Some paternalist (black) asshole is outraged. "How do you make it FAIR?"

    He would make a great addition to the Ministry of Plenty.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Easy, cap the stipend at $10,000 a year or so (in addition to tuition, room and board, etc).

    The current system, where athletes have $0 in spending money, is begging for corruption.

  • KDN||

    They get more than $0, but it's still insanely low and forbidden to be supplemented by work-study jobs (my roommate in College, a backup center, was violated for working a minimum wage job as a basketball ref for the intramurals dept; GG, NCAA). And if you get a job that pays anything halfway close to decent (like, say $700 more for a summer than they deem appropriate), the NCAA reserves the right to suspend you for 3/4 of the season. God, the NCAA sucks.

  • Drake||

    Aren't they already paying them with $50k a year (or so) in free education, room, and meals?

    Start giving them a paycheck and the IRS might decide to tax all of it, not just the paycheck.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Aren't they already paying them with $50k a year (or so) in free education, room, and meals?

    Yeah, but they're doing that with academic scholarships too, and you don't see the NCAA dropping the sanctions hammer on schools for letting their geek squads work a regular-paying job.

  • Zeb||

    No, it's not fair that some people are exceptional athletes. Tough shit for the rest of us.

  • Drake||

    "they want jobs"

    That's the incorrect assumption throwing Behravesh, Bailey, and everyone else off. They don't want full employment. Then people won't be envious of the successful (they could just work to get nice stuff). People would be less dependent on government, therefore less likely to vote for generous politicians. And when people are self-sufficient and accumulate some wealth, they get crazy ideas in their heads that government intrusion into their lives isn't necessary.

    They don't want full employment or prosperity - it causes too much trouble.

  • Mike M.||

    Nail right on the head. The people who don't understand this administration don't because they can't accept the fact that he wants to destroy the country as it has existed so that he can remake it the way he feels it ought to be.

    The usual paradigm that applies to a normal person who wishes the country well (and every president before this one) doesn't apply in this case. This president is shaped by Cloward, Piven, Marx, and Alinsky. Once you come to accept this basic fact, pretty much everything he does makes perfect sense.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
    -Napoleon

    It's not that they don't want jobs and want dependence. I don't give them credit for being that cunning. Rather they are completely ignorant of basic economics and really believe that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else. They see profit motive as a bad thing, not the engine of a wealthy society. They value intentions more than results.

    They're not malicious. They're incompetent boobs.

  • Drake||

    Never assume malice and incompetence are mutually exclusive.

    I learned that from the first Obama Administration.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.'"
    --Will Smith

  • Jeff||

    "Na na na na na na nana, gettin' jiggy wit' it."
    --Will Smith

  • califernian||

    They're not malicious. They're incompetent boobs.

    ^^This. Just like the last administration.

  • Drake||

    I say they are malicious incompetent boobs.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Rather they are completely ignorant of basic economics and really believe that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else.

    Exactly. He and his merry band of social engineers are completely in the dark about how true wealth is created; they think printing money to pay government employees with is "growing the economy".

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