BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Barack Obama Archive

Friday

2

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

10

March 2010

0

COMMENTS

Blame The Speculators!

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

Speculators are a frequent target of big government, because speculators help bring about the consequences of bad government policy.  Greece, aided by the ever economically brilliant Barack Obama, is taking just this approach:

President Barack Obama has “responded positively” to calls to clamp down on market speculators, the Greek PM said after talks in Washington.

…Greece has blamed market speculators for worsening its current economic troubles.

European politicians have already expressed their concern over the issue.

“We ourselves were in the last few months the victims of speculators,” Mr Papandreou said, after meeting Mr Obama.

They are victims!  And how, exactly, have they been victimized?

They say speculators, such as hedge funds, are unfairly betting that Greece will default on its loans.

Such moves are making it more expensive for Greece to borrow funds.

The speculators are typically betting against Greece defaulting on its government bond payments – or having its credit rating lowered – by buying large quantities of a complex financial insurance instrument called a Credit Default Swap (CDS).

It unfortunately does not occur to them that speculators are “betting against Greeze defaulting on its government bond payments” because the policies of the Greek government have made it more likely that they will default on their bond payments.

This is what is supposed to happen.  Good policies get rewarded; bad policies get punished.

Speculators gain nothing by being wrong.  So often it is insinuated that they deliberately drive this or that down, that it’s bad to “bet against” some thing, and that the only reason it happens is because speculators are greedy.  Unless it’s oil, then they greedily bet it up.

There’s the rub.  It makes no difference to speculators which way anything moves, only that they guess right.  And because they have strong financial incentive to do so, they usually do.  This means their bets are a useful signal to the market.

Imagine if more evil, greedy speculators had bet against the U.S. financial markets in the mid 2000’s like Warren Buffet did.  Maybe there would have been a strong enough signal to correct the course before it was too late.

Obama’s siding with Greece against speculators is not surprising.  Not only does he harbor a fundamental antipathy to all things free market, but he understands that when the U.S. faces higher interest rates for borrowing in response to his irresponsible policies, he’ll be in a similar position of needing a scape goat.

Sunday

28

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

24

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

How Not To Bring Down Health Care Prices

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Health care can be expensive.  There are lots of reasons why this is.  Some of them we don’t want to change, such as the fact that modern health care is capable of miracles.  Miracles aren’t cheap.  Other causes we don’t want to change, such as the fact that third-party payers eliminate normal market pressure to keep prices down.

Obama has another idea, however.  Control insurance prices!

President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation’s health care system, White House officials said Sunday.

Two reasons this is dumb:

1) Price controls don’t work.  It’s like trying to legislate away gravity.  Michael Tanner explains some of the consequences:

Insurers unable to charge more for an increasingly expensive product can be expected to trim costs in one of two ways:

  • They can drop their most expensive customers — in this case, the sickest, who consume the most health care. Many companies are already doing this, a major source of dissatisfaction with the health-care system. In fact, the president wants to prohibit companies from doing this.
  • They can cut back on their reimbursement rates to hospitals and physicians. But neither doctors nor hospitals, any more than insurance companies, are willing to operate at a loss. If payments fall below their costs, they’ll simply stop taking patients. One only has to look at government programs like Medicare and Medicaid to see how this works.

2) Insurance prices go up because health care prices go up.  Not only is Obama attempting to apply the wrong remedy, but he’s targeting the wrong problem.  It’s stupidity squared.

Monday

22

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

Memo To Obama: Economists Do Not Agree

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

President Obama likes to assert that economists across the political spectrum agree that big government spending is necessary to fight off recession.  “Economists on the left and right,” he insisted early in 2009, “agree that the last thing the government should do during a recession is cut back on spending.”  Essentially, he’s saying that all economists are Keynesians.  This is simply false, as Harvard Professor Jeffrey Miron tells us today at the Daily Caller.

..That brings us to the second argument for higher spending: the Keynesian claim that spending stimulates the economy. If this is accurate, it might seem the U.S. should continue its high-spending ways until the recession is over.

But the Keynesian argument for spending is also problematic. To begin with, the Keynesian view implies that any spending—whether for vital infrastructure or bridges to nowhere—is equally good at stimulating the economy. This might be true in the short term (emphasis on might), but it cannot be true over the long haul, and many “temporary” programs last for decades. So stimulus spending should be for good projects, not “digging ditches,” yet the number of good projects is small given how much is already being spent.

More broadly, the Keynesian model of the economy relies on strong assumptions, so we should not embrace it without empirical confirmation. In fact, economists find weak or contradictory evidence that higher government spending spurs the economy.

Substantial research, however, does find that tax cuts stimulate the economy and that fiscal adjustments—attempts to reduce deficits by raising taxes or lowering expenditure—work better when they focus on tax cuts. This does not fit the Keynesian view, but it makes perfect sense given that high taxes and ill-justified spending make the economy less productive…

Recently, Obama again cited the entire spectrum of economists as supporters of his agenda: “Now, if you hear some of the critics, they’ll say, well, the Recovery Act, I don’t know if that’s really worked, because we still have high unemployment. But what they fail to understand is that every economist, from the left and the right, has said, because of the Recovery Act, what we’ve started to see is at least a couple of  million jobs that have either been created or would have been lost.

Economist Robert Barro explains in the Wall Street Journal what a load that is.

Friday

19

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

Thursday

28

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

Tuesday

26

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

Polarization Continues Unabated

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

Barack Obama promised to be a game-changer when it comes to polarization (McCain made similar, though less direct, promises).  He clearly promised more than he could deliver (which I predicted would be the case at the time), as a new Gallup poll shows.

polarizationThe trend line here is interesting.  It fits with my own theory, that bigger government results in greater polarization.  However, it’s possible I was right for the wrong reasons.  I readily admit that I cannot rule out other explanations.  It’s possible, for instance, that this is a reflection of greater ideological homogenization of the parties thanks to realignment.  Southern conservative have shifted from the Democrats to Republicans while Northeastern liberal Republicans have made the reverse trip.

Can you think of any other explanations for the trend?

Saturday

23

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

I’m Not Sympathetic

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

NRO describes the “questions” Obama received at his Ohio Town Hall appearance yesterday:

A very out-of-rhythm speech was followed by some of the most obscure and unhelpful questions ever uttered at a town-hall meeting. I was left with a bit of sympathy for President Obama, as questioner after questioner asked about their own specific concerns, often way out of the president’s duties, responsibilities, and realm of expertise: One guy was an inventor who wanted to give him a sales pitch, one woman lamented the impatience of the American people before complaining about a slow response from the state environmental agency over her toddler’s lead poisoning, one guy wanted to read the president a poem; there was a woman who talked about the problem of finding students for her truck-driving school, an old lady who was upset that her Social Security didn’t have a cost-of-living increase, and a guy who had the patent for some wind-turbine issue that he was in a fight with some company about. One poor soul raised his hand and just wanted to shake Obama’s hand.

While I would no doubt find this very frustrating if I were in his position, he has no one to blame but himself (and his statist political philosophy). He has long encouraged people to look to government to solve all their ills and to look to him personally as a savior figure to right all the wrongs in society – indeed, in the world (slowing the rise of the seas and what have you).

These are creatures of his own making. They are exactly the constituents he deserves.

Wednesday

6

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

At All Costs

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Nancy Pelosi and the far left have decided that gaining control of our health care system must be done at any cost.  Promises be damned.

Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi promised there would be transparency during the health care debate.  Pelosi assumed the Speakers role while promising to work at “restoring accountability and openness.” She also promised “ample time” for the public to learn what is in the health care bill.  Don’t hold your breath.

04congress_slide9_nancy-pelosi

The mallet is for bashing heads

At a 2008 debate, Obama said that a potential health care bill would not be negotiated “behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span so the American people can see what the choices are.” He lied on all accounts.  Democrats are negotiating behind closed doors, will subvert the normal legislative process, and have cut out Republicans.  Meanwhile, the CEO of C-Span wrote a letter, thus far to no avail, asking these leaders to live up to their promises by having the process televised.

Faced with this reality, Nancy Pelosi put on her best Baghdad Bob impression and declared, “there has never been a more open process for any legislation.”  Au contraire! There has never been a bigger liar serving as Speaker of the House, nor President of the United States.