Obama: “The private sector is doing fine.”

Republican: “No, it isn’t.”

Obama: “The private sector is doing fine.”

Republican: “No, it isn’t! What do you think you are, a Jedi, waving your hand like that? I’m a Republican! Mind tricks don’t work on me–only reality!”

Excessive public expenditure is a drain on the private sector, which in the end needs to be taxed excessively to pay for excessive public expenditure — the point that the Republicans have been highlighting, and can expect to hammer as the year wears on. It’s something Obama just cannot understand.

President Obama is all about public spending — he does not understand or trust the private economy, and he fears the collapse of growth (and indeed a large-scale retraction) of the public economy.

What he was trying to say is simple: he thinks the argument public spending needs to be constrained to help the private economy is wrong. He believes the private economy does its own thing, and rises and falls on a cyclical basis and will naturally (magically?) self-correct, whereas the public economy needs specific, continued, spending. He also sees the public economy as superior, rather than having the private economy’s crass pursuit of profits.

In his eyes, the private economy is “doing fine”, while the public economy faces a huge crisis, and desperately needs help. He is arguing to keep up the spending to save the public economy, rather than reducing spending to help the private sector — on the basis it is the public sector holding up the economy (look at his background and you’ll see why he thinks that way — it’s all been public money).

Obama simply has no concept of the causal relationships between the private and public economies. He really, really, does not understand where the money comes from, and he is genuinely struggling with why so many people can’t understand his position.

Ahhhh, to be such an intellectual giant amongst the pygmies! From Obama’s point of view, he’s not just the smartest guy in the room, he’s the only smart guy in the room, any room, anytime, anywhere. It must be so lonely! ROFL

Obama in “The Audacity of Hope.”

True, state and local governments can’t print money or borrow it so easily. That’s good. It creates more accountability.

The $800 BN “stimulus” merely delayed the decline of the public sector employment picture. His answer: more stimulus.

That is an excellent observation, Another gem of wisdom that is hidden in plain sight and usually overlooked.

Thanks,

This is why man made global warming was invented by socialist/leftist. To make peasantry an acceptable and righteous cause. And all dissenters are just uncaring rubes who hate the earth and nature.

Team Obama economists come into Obama’s office each week and discuss how to get the economy going. They discuss the official statistics of GDP (Gross Domestic Production) and jobs held. The government wants a statistical recovery.

Team Obama wants to report hard numbers, however they are accomplished. If you argue with numbers, you are a moron. Who are you to question the non-partisan measurements of a government bureaucracy with huge datasets and giant computers? You are a peasant.

The economists point out a direct plan. When government hires more workers, their pay and benefits are counted as increasing GDP no matter what they do or accomplish. Obviously, they now have a job, so the employment statistics improve immediately. This is a no brainer! It is a two’fer.

Expanding government employment directly and immediately improves the two statistics which government cares about. It is the direct path to statistical prosperity.

Plus, Team Obama believes in the Keynesian Multiplier. They actually believe that they will produce more wealth for us all, if they can pay out more cash to accomplish anything or nothing. So, it is a three’fer.

( If the Multiplier were true, then we could counterfeit our way to wealth. But sorry, it isn’t true. )

Here are the facts about government master plans, oversight, and statistics.
Unintended Consequences and Perverse Incentives
=== ===
[edited]  Managers and employees of glass plants in the former Soviet Union followed master-plan production guidelines.

At one time, they were rewarded according to the tons of sheet glass produced. Not surprisingly, most plants produced sheet glass so thick that one could hardly see through it. (And, this glass did not fix prior applications such as broken windows.)

The rules were changed to reward the total area (square meters) of glass produced. Then, they produced glass so thin that it broke easily.
=== ===

Team Obama wants to manufacture more statistical GDP and jobs numbers in any way it can. Thick or thin doesn’t matter.

No traction because people really don’t think in terms like that. Federal/state spending has become identical so that even to ask the question gets a big “hunh?”

At least to the people who don’t have to pay taxes!

When I first moved to Europe, I was shocked at how poor Europeans were relative to us, as evidenced by, e.g., the living space available to them.

I once entered the comment thread on a Euro Blog, where the Euros were claiming that their poor were so much better off than poor in the US. I pointed out that while the poor in the US have less living space than the better off, the poor in the US have more living space per capita than the average European. I was informed that was an irrelevant statistic. How can you compare living in a house trailer in the country to having an apartment in Paris? I concluded it was a waste of time to discuss with the Euros.

Similarly, although I’ve only been there for a few months at a time, Japanese are also poorer than we are; they have gadgets, but their homes are microscopic by American standards.

Which reminds me of one of the national Heaven/Hell jokes.

Heaven is an American house
Hell is a Japanese house

Heaven is a Japanese wife
Hell is an American wife.

[I am just reporting what a Chinese told me.]

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf Dwelling space, page 23.