Economic rubes: Suffer them no more
Idiots, imbeciles and ignorami.
And we're being charitable in our descriptives of the Obama administration's "understanding" of fundamental economics.
At no time has this unflattering verity been more on display than Wednesday last. That's when presidential mouthpiece Jay Carney, the former Washington bureau chief for Time magazine, claimed the unclaimable -- that unemployment benefits create jobs.
Unemployment benefits beget spending that begets "added business" that begets "decisions about hiring, more jobs," Mr. Carney said with a face surely kept straight only through Botox injections. Nancy Pelosi spewed the same "progressive" shibboleth last year.
But such claims are patently false, says the Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds:
"Whether the government pays people to work or to stay on the dole, it has to get the money from taxing, borrowing or printing money -- all of which reduce real income and employment opportunities in the private sector," he wrote last year. "To imagine that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is a way to create or save Paul's job is to forget that Peter expects his money back with interest."
Americans should suffer these graduates of the Rube Goldberg School of Economics no more.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.