Old Views--New Views

We again hear the litany of great Growth potential in foreign nations. There is only one basic thing wrong with the two giga-nations of China and Russia for foreigner investors: the Investments are tied to the land, which cannot be up and moved. Neither nation has a good Record of protecting Property rights–recent or traditional. Governments of both have traditionally been brutal, violent, and bloody in Temperament. The last time Government in Russia thought to abrogate Property rights–about 17 million Landowners went to forced labor camps in Siberia. The last time China abrogated Property rights, about 30 million went to slave labor; actually, as did most of Those who put the first group of Landowners in Camps. Reality states that it requires Nine good years of Crop yields to fully pay for Agricultural capital, which Weather can alter into about 14 years, and Regime change can alter that time to Never. The Money men will be out of Agriculture within Three years of selling the Investment to Investors; who can exploit any of the Above options. Orloff’s conversion to Agriculture reminds of George W. Bush’s Sale of Blue Sky Oil wells during his Daddy’s presidency.

I wondered whether I should highlight this article by Louis Uchitelle, or give the Reader this article by Alan Blinder; so I decided to give both. Both explain a lot about Economics, one describing the problems with the aggregate Numbers, while the other examines the specific problems with Republican Numbers. The Reader should realize that I am not attempting to attain any Partisan position, and that in both articles, some Realities are ignored. The GDP can be as much an evaluation of Inflation, as it is of Growth; the exact split between the Two almost never given. Growth rates under Democrats may reflect a higher degree of Inflation, basically because more national Income is devoted to Consumption, than in Investment to avoid Taxation. There is also the Green Proposal, where economic growth must someday reduce: One cannot continually input Population Growth into a matrix of limited Resources and high Carbon footprint. This Later makes the entire Growth model counterproductive in comparison of human needs.

Here is one of those times where I believe Dean Baker is a little too positive in his assessments, though he is somewhat right about Ben Stein’s article. Ben is correct that the Stimulus Package did little good, and a following repetition would be equally as non-fulfilling; Dean might check to see if the added Growth in GDP actually exceeded a dollar-for-dollar expansion of the economy. I remember the arguments I had with my Grandfather when JFK proposed raising the National Debt to $100 billion, and wonder if the Stimulus grew anything except for the National Debt. I also decide the description of Windfall Gains upon the issue of whether the benefitted Companies attempt to increase Production; an example not presented by either Oil or the Financial markets (another Stimulus Package which is not going well). I would finally like to inform the Washington Post that economic issues can be explained simply, solely due to propagandist blockage. lgl