How will we know if President Barack Obama’s must-have “stimulus” program succeeds? Politicians grab credit for everything, so we should come up with a way to measure success.
Obama said: “I expect to be judged by results.”
Let’s oblige him.
But it won’t be easy. Obama promises to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, but if the unemployment rate is unchanged in four years, do we credit Obama for saving 3.5 million jobs that would have been lost?
If new jobs are created, should stimulus get the credit? If the gain is in the government sector or in areas fed by taxpayer money, how do we know that the job creation didn’t crowd out the creation of more and more-productive jobs?
If the gain is in the private sector, Obama’s boosters will claim credit on the basis of the “multiplier effect.” It’s a favorite theory of politicians and their court economists that government spending has a bigger economic jolt than cutting marginal tax rates. But not everyone is so sure (Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, for one).
The bottom line is that a lower unemployment rate will not prove that Obama’s “stimulus” worked.
Given time, the economy — unless totally crippled by government intervention — will regenerate itself. That’s because an economy is not a machine that needs jumpstarting. It is people who have objectives they want to achieve. They will not sit on their hands forever waiting for government to “fix” things. Instead, they work to overcome obstacles to get what they want. Some banks are struggling, but there are still people who want to lend money and people who want to borrow it. They will find each other without government help.
During the Great Depression, many Americans kept producing in spite of the burdens imposed by then US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal (Amity Shlaes calls these “the forgotten man”).
Likewise, today, economist Steven Horwitz writes: “[T]he American people are already doing something to create wealth and hasten the recovery, even if we are the ones forgotten in the battle over what Washington should do. Americans are going to work every day, providing for their families ... increasing their savings rates, making much needed capital available to the private sector ... imagining new and more efficient ways to use valuable resources.”
We should make sure that Obama and his congressional colleagues don’t take credit for what we do. It wouldn’t be the first time a “leader” ran in front of a crowd and claimed to have led the way.
What if the economy is still in bad shape a year or two from now? Will we get apologies from Obama and the stimulus advocates in Congress? Not a chance. Their excuse is already prepared: The stimulus was too small.
On the day Obama signed the bill, his aides put out the word that another may be needed. The blame will not be put on the folly of stimulus, only on the meagerness of the spending.
Heads: big government wins. Tails: free people lose. I don’t want to play that game.
It’s important to remember that government has no resources it hasn’t first commandeered from the private economy. Anything it does to stimulate economic activity necessarily preempts private activity. Where is the gain?
Worse, since monopoly bureaucracies are not as efficient as competitive businesses, government efforts won’t get as much bang for the buck as private efforts. They will likely destroy wealth.
Ah, say the Keynesians, people aren’t buying, and that’s why businesses aren’t investing and hiring. Only government can jumpstart the economy.
But people didn’t just wake up one day and decide not to consume and invest. They hold back because the economy is uncertain. Then they hold back more because they don’t know what activist government will do next. Will it prop up housing or other prices? Will it nationalize the banks?
The way to get private activity going again is to let markets adjust to reality and set prices accordingly. Only then will economic activity resume and unemployment recede.
If, through your perseverance, things begin looking up, credit belongs not to Obama and Congress. It belongs to you.
John Stossel is co-anchor of the ABC News current affairs TV program 20/20 in the US.
COPYRIGHT: JFS PRODUCTIONS
It is a good time to be in the air-conditioning business. As my colleagues at Bloomberg News write, an additional 1 billion cooling units are expected to be installed by the end of the decade. It is one of the main ways in which humans are adapting to more frequent and intense heatwaves. With a potentially strong El Nino on the horizon — a climate pattern that increases global temperatures — and greenhouse gas emissions still higher than ever, the world is facing another record-breaking summer, and another one, and another and so on. For many, owning an air conditioner has become a
Election seasons expose societal divisions and contrasting visions about the future of Taiwan. They also offer opportunities for leaders to forge unity around practical ideas for strengthening Taiwan’s resilience. Beijing has in the past sought to exacerbate divisions within Taiwan. For Beijing, a divided Taiwan is less likely to pursue permanent separation. It also is more manipulatable than a united Taiwan. A divided polity has lower trust in government institutions and diminished capacity to solve societal challenges. As my co-authors Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser, and I recently wrote in our book US-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis?, “Beijing wants
Taiwanese students spend thousands of hours studying English. Yet after three to five class-hours of English as a foreign language every week for more than nine years, most students can barely utter a sentence of English. The government’s “Bilingual Nation 2030” policy would do little to change this. As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies would soon be able to translate in real time, why should students squander so much of their youth and potential on learning a foreign language? AI might save students time, but it should not replace language learning. Instead, the technology could amplify learning, and it might also enhance
National Taiwan University (NTU) has come under fire after an offensive set of proposals by two students running for president and vice president of the student council caused an uproar over the weekend. Among the proposals were requiring girls with “boobs smaller than an A cup” to take two national defense credits and boys with “dicks shorter than 10cm” to take home economics class, as well as banning people with a body mass index of more than 20 from taking elevators, and barring LGBTQ students and dogs from playing Arena of Valor during student council meetings. They also opposed admission
RSS