Home / socialism
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Why does the government think that it can do a better job of advertising job openings?

Why does the government think that it can do a better job of advertising job openings?

Who really thinks that the government can do a better job on this? From the WSJ:

The Obama Administration is outputting job-creation proposals at Twitter-speed and ridiculing Republicans for not signing onto the whole package. Which brings us to an already up-and-running federal jobs program called USAJobs.gov. Well, up-and-running is an overstatement.

Americans in search of federal employment can go to a website called USAJobs.gov, which matches openings with applicants. Since 2004, the feds have outsourced the site's operation to Monster.com. Good call by whoever was in charge in 2004. Monster.com is the private company that pioneered employment websites and is today the largest job search engine in the world.

But 18 months ago the "smart" Obama Office of Personnel Management decided the federal government could do a better job of running USAJobs.gov. It spent some $6 million developing a new in-house version of the site, promising to improve the job-search experience. It unveiled its creation two weeks ago. It's a monster all right.

The volume of requests instantly crushed government servers, slowed the system and locked out thousands of applicants. Naturally, the site has a Facebook page. Naturally, the comment queue is boiling over. Examples:

"Why am I having to do the same search 3 times before anything shows up?" "Over one week now and I still haven't received my password reset email!!" "USAJOBS WEB SITE IS A DISASTER!" "I entered Delaware and got Germany jobs and all of the Forest Service." . . .
And one wonders why there is a capital flight from Argentina

And one wonders why there is a capital flight from Argentina

With this type of nationalization and regulation, you would think that people would understand why no one wants to invest in Argentina. From Bloomberg:

Argentina ordered oil, gas and mining companies to repatriate all export revenue as the government struggles to stem accelerating capital flight from South America’s second-biggest economy.
President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, in her first move since winning re-election on Oct. 23, changed a 2002 decree requiring companies such as Repsol YPF SA and Pan American Energy LLC to keep at least 30 percent of their export revenue in the country. Today’s decree, published in the official gazette, applies to future sales.
The decision by Fernandez, who nationalized the $24 billion pension fund industry and called for a limit on purchases of farmland by foreigners, is part of an effort to slow capital flight estimated at $3 billion per month that is draining central banks reserves. The policy may make it harder to attract foreign direct investment to Argentina that the United Nations estimates fell 30 percent in the first half of the year. . . .
The Federal Government Destroys the Return to Pharmaceutical developing new drugs and now the government wants to develop new drugs

The Federal Government Destroys the Return to Pharmaceutical developing new drugs and now the government wants to develop new drugs

Big surprise. The continuing threat of price controls has destroyed the incentives to invest in new research. So now the socialist Obama is having the government take over the Pharmaceutical company's role of developing new drugs. Not "intended to be competitive with private" firms? Be serious. Where "private industry has failed"? Here is the bottom line: Can government create as many new drugs for the same amount of money as private companies? If they can, that will be the first for the government. If not, rather than forcing the companies to charge low prices so that the government can "save money" and then have the government have to pay to get the research done. Why not just let the private companies keep their money and let them do the research?

The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicines.

The new effort comes as many large drug makers, unable to find enough new drugs, are paring back research. Promising discoveries in illnesses like depression and Parkinson’s that once would have led to clinical trials are instead going unexplored because companies have neither the will nor the resources to undertake the effort.

The initial financing of the government’s new drug center is relatively small compared with the $45.8 billion that the industry estimates it invested in research in 2009. The cost of bringing a single drug to market can exceed $1 billion, according to some estimates, and drug companies have typically spent twice as much on marketing as on research, a business model that is increasingly suspect. . . .

“None of this is intended to be competitive with the private sector,” Dr. Collins said. . . .

Whether the government can succeed where private industry has failed . . .


UPDATE: "“Startup America,” the administration's new campaign designed to put the focus on jobs and inspiring Americans to think like entrepreneurs." Is this ironic?

As much of Washington kept its gaze on protests in Egpyt on Monday, President Obama's Cabinet sought to turn attention to “Startup America,” the administration's new campaign designed to put the focus on jobs and inspiring Americans to think like entrepreneurs.

“It’s quite clear that some of the biggest employers in the nation ... started in somebody’s garage as just an idea that they had,” economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said at the White House along with Cabinet secretaries and other members of the administration. “And whether you look at innovation itself and new ideas, if you look at employment, if you look at the growth that gives people careers – all of those things are tied to entrepreneurial ventures in a quite ... direct way.”

Gene Sperling, Obama's new director of the National Economic Council, said a bill for small businesses signed by Obama was “just the start,” calling the new policy measures a “top priority” for the president.
Obama's "Freudian slips"

Obama's "Freudian slips"

This piece has only a partial list of Obama's "slips," but these slips show the Obama that I knew at the University of Chicago. The guy is a left winger, a socialist. An comprehensive list would include his claim that the market caused the recession, that profits increase the cost of insurance because they have to be added on top of other costs, his micromanaging of what companies can invest in, etc..

But Obama’s effort to overhaul his image is encumbered by conflicting impressions of who he is that have been engraved in voters’ minds by his own words.

During unguarded and even some staged — but inadvertently revealing — moments, Obama has allowed unintended glimpses into his thinking. At various times, his offhand comments have led critics, and many voters, to view him as an ardent leftist or an elitist or — most recently — a partisan Democrat.

These Freudian slips, uncovering the man beneath the spin and the speeches, are embedded in Americans’ subconscious, if you will, because they seem to come directly from the president’s inner self. Obama can change his policies, but he cannot easily erase these perceptions. And because of his cool opaqueness — noted even by his own staff — and his relatively brief track record on the national stage, voters have little else to go on. . . .

His surprising self-revelations began during the presidential campaign. They were harmful but did not create major problems.

First, there was his condescension toward blue-collar Midwestern voters. At a San Francisco fundraiser, he said, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” . . .
Obama as anti-free market, is there even a question?

Obama as anti-free market, is there even a question?

Is Obama anti-business? Last week Obama defended himself against these claims. Now Austan Goolsbee explains that Obama isn't anti-business because (video available at link):

“There have been people criticizing the president, saying he’s a socialist, he doesn’t believe in the private market — that’s totally bogus." . . . “From the beginning and continuing up to the present, the president has always said that the private sector is going to be the only sustainable source of job creation and growth in this country, and that’s what we need to have.” . . . .


Ugh? What does the fact that the president says that most jobs will have to be working for private firms have to do with proving that he isn't anti-business. He wants to use government grants to business to determine what businesses will grow. That is pro-market?

Goolsbee blames the angry sentiments on: “When the unemployment rate is 9.6 percent, and when you’re coming out of the deepest hole in anybody’s lifetime, you knew that there were going to be a lot of people generally upset and not feeling good about where they are. ..." Obama is surely anti-free market. He dislikes businesses, though he is happy to give wealth transfers to some of them.

Goolsbee also did an interview that just came out with the WSJ. He claims that Obama isn't anti-business because he "pushed through 16 tax cuts to assist small businesses and proposed additional incentives." The problem is that Obama doesn't trust businesses to make decisions. See also here.

Obama and Goolsbee keep claiming that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression, though Goolsbee claims that this is "the deepest recession since 1929."

Obama's anti-business attitudes don't just stem from his support for various price controls on everything from credit markets to health insurance. It isn't just that he is constantly attacking corporate officers for their excessive pay. He attacks insurance companies for being excessively concentrated and he lies about how concentrated they are.

Strong arming bondholders to get them to agree to forfeit their investments. Obama denounced Chrysler creditors as "speculators" who refuse to sacrifice as they should. Forcing the removal of auto dealerships that the companies didn't want removed and remove dealerships based on the gender and race of the dealers. After bailing out banks, Obama sought authority to seize any financial institution whose collapse might be "a systemic risk" to the economy. Attacking the profits of insurance companies and blaming those profits for the high cost of their insurance. He attacked doctors who give patients unnecessary tests or medicine as: "And it's driven from a business mentality instead of a mentality of, how do we make patients better?" What about calling Wall Street "fat cats."

His discussions with CEOs involve lecturing them: "He has held a number of meetings with CEOs, formally and off the record, but attendees I’ve talked to feel that although he listens intently, he rarely changes course."

Possibly Obama may go as far as claiming that the health care bill was done for businesses because he wanted to lower their costs.

Dinesh D'Souza is wrong when he says that Obama "isn't exactly a socialist." If he isn't socialist, he is fascist. Where private ownership is allowed, there is complete government control.
"Cuba to cut one million public sector jobs"

"Cuba to cut one million public sector jobs"

Cuba gradually moves towards privatization of the economy.

Cuba has announced radical plans to lay off huge numbers of state employees, to help revive the communist country's struggling economy.

The Cuban labour federation said more than a million workers would lose their jobs - half of them by March next year.

Those laid off will be encouraged to become self-employed or join new private enterprises, on which some of the current restrictions will be eased.

Analysts say it is biggest private sector shift since the 1959 revolution.

Cuba's communist government currently controls almost all aspects of the country's economy and employs about 85% of the official workforce, which is put at 5.1 million people.

As many as one-in-five of all workers could lose their jobs.

"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy," the labour federation said in a statement. . . .
Castro says that Cuban model doesn't work any more

Castro says that Cuban model doesn't work any more

For a long time he was propped up by a subsidy from the USSR, then he was propped up with a subsidy from Venezuela. Even then you would think that he had noticed the decades old cars on the streets. The notion of direct government control over the economy has been crumbling there for years as they have open up more and more private operations. I suppose better late than never:

HAVANA – Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.
The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.
Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.
He said Castro made the comment casually over lunch following a long talk about the Middle East, and did not elaborate. The Cuban government had no immediate comment on Goldberg's account. . . .
So why not have government fund sex with prostitutes for the disabled?

So why not have government fund sex with prostitutes for the disabled?

At least that is the attitude of one columnist in Ireland. I guess if the government pays for everything else, why not sex?

I thought the story about public money sending a 21-year-old guy with learning difficulties off to Amsterdam to soak in the sights, sample the unique local cuisine and have sex with a prostitute was the feelgood story of the week.

Not everyone agreed. Since it came to light that council money handed out to disabled people has paid for visits to lap-dancing clubs, prostitutes and sign-ups to internet dating sites, newspapers and radio phone-ins have been jam-packed with indignant voices.

Some object to a ‘mis-use of public funds’, some have expressed concern about the immorality of promoting ‘loveless’ sex as a social service, and some have even suggested that the state putting money into the hands of a sex-worker is ‘evil’ and/or ‘sick’.

It never ceases to amaze me how energetic people can get disapproving of acts of compassion being visited upon those less fortunate than themselves. . . .
Venezuela has become a real economic basket case

Venezuela has become a real economic basket case

From the BBC

Venezuela's biggest beer producer, food and drink giant Polar, is also the country's largest company still in private hands after President Hugo Chavez's nationalisation drive.

But that may not be the case for long.

Last week, Mr Chavez stepped up his attacks on Polar's billionaire owner, Lorenzo Mendoza, whom he has previously accused of pushing up food prices by hoarding products to cause artificial shortages.

For its part, Polar has called the allegations "absurd" and "senseless". . . .

Venezuelan economist Angel Alayon, of food industry body Cavidea, says that the government now controls 75% of coffee production, 42% of maize flour, 40% of rice, 25% of cooking oil, 52% of sugar and 25% of milk.

The government says it has a duty to secure food supplies and to prevent what it sees as "economic sabotage" by private companies. . . .

The country's economy contracted 5.8% in the first quarter of this year compared with a year earlier.

The International Monetary Fund predicts that its GDP will shrink by 2.6% in 2010, making it the only Latin American economy, and the world's only oil exporter, to see a contraction for this year.

Mr Chavez believes that a bigger economic role for the state is the only way to ensure the effectiveness of his price controls and stave off stagflation - the deadly combination of economic stagnation and high inflation that is currently assailing the country.

Venezuela's consumer inflation rate is currently the worst in Latin America, reaching an annual rate of 27% last year and expected to rise to 29.7% in 2010, according to the IMF. . . .
Guess what?: if you steal from investors, they aren't very thrilled investing more money

Guess what?: if you steal from investors, they aren't very thrilled investing more money

It seems like a pretty simple lesson, but Hugo Chavez is learning that capitalists make production possible.

In anticipation of Thursday's Carabobo oil field auction, outspoken Marxist president Hugo Chavez quietly pleaded for foreign investment.

""Investment and experience from foreign oil firms is necessary in Venezuela. We need it," Chavez said, according to Dow Jones.

The statement is a serious turnaround for a government that has nationalized dozens of foreign oil companies in recent years. But they 'need' foreign investment because mismanagement is turning the country into just another failed petro-state. . . .
Ron Bloom: Obama's senior counselor for manufacturing policy

Ron Bloom: Obama's senior counselor for manufacturing policy



From the Washington Post on September 8th:

President Obama on Monday announced his selection of Ron Bloom as senior counselor for manufacturing policy.

Speaking at an AFL-CIO picnic in Cincinnati, the president introduced Bloom, who has been a senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner as part of the auto industry task force since February. Bloom, a Harvard Business School graduate, previously advised the United Steelworkers union and worked as an investment banker.

"As my new point person on manufacturing, he's going to help us craft the policies that will create the next generation of great manufacturing jobs and ensure American competitiveness in the 21st century," Obama said.

Bloom will work with the National Economic Council to develop and plan policy for Obama's efforts to revitalize U.S. manufacturing, the White House said. He will retain his position on the auto task force. . . .
Government aid playing favorites?: How could that happen?

Government aid playing favorites?: How could that happen?

Now that it looks as if another company might win Opel, the German government is making its aid offer more explicitly tied to which company has the winning bid. So much for the impression of there not being any bias. From the WSJ.

Germany's government sent a message to General Motors Co. on Wednesday: If GM sells its European car business to anyone other than Magna International Inc., then Germany might withdraw its offer of state aid.

The warning comes as German politicians grow increasingly nervous about who will win the auction for GM's European operations, centered on its Opel brand, a major employer in Germany and several other European countries.

Germany's strong hint could bolster Magna's chances, despite intense interest from other parties. Without government help, investors would struggle to finance the money-losing Opel and GM's Vauxhall in Britain.

Six weeks ago, Germany thought GM was on course to sell control of Opel to Magna, a Canadian-Austrian automotive supplier that has promised to keep Opel's German factories running. German politicians, facing national elections Sept. 27, pledged to support Magna's plan with €4.5 billion ($6.3 billion) in loan guarantees.

Since then, the divergent interests of Detroit and Berlin have become clear, and the auction is turning into a game of chicken between GM and Germany.

A newly confident GM, emerging faster than expected Friday from bankruptcy proceedings, is growing cool on Magna after failing for weeks to bridge differences with Magna over issues including access to GM technology and world markets.

GM's preliminary, nonbinding accord with Magna in late May was "a shotgun wedding" under political pressure from Germany, said one person close to GM. . . . .
Venezuela's Chavez moves to take control of country's banking system

Venezuela's Chavez moves to take control of country's banking system

How many banks say that they "favor" certain sectors of the economy? Possibly banks could say that they have expertise in certain sectors, but saying that they "favor" sectors is quite different.

President Hugo Chavez's government assumed control of Venezuela's third-largest bank on Friday - making the state the largest player in the nation's banking system. . . .
The acquisition will "strengthen the public banking system," which favors sectors including agriculture, energy, housing and tourism, Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez said in a statement. . . . .
So much for Obama's promise that business decisions would drive GM's decisions

So much for Obama's promise that business decisions would drive GM's decisions

From the Hill:

Rep Barney Frank (D-Mass.) won a stay of execution on Thursday for a General Motors plant in his district that the automaker had announced it would close.

No other lawmaker has managed to halt the GM ax. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Frank oversees the government's bailout program, known as TARP. Frank's staff said the lawmaker spokes with GM CEO Fritz Henderson on Wednesday and convinced him to keep the Norton, Mass. plant open for at least 14 months.

GM announced Monday in its bankruptcy and restructuring plans it would close of nine of its plants and idle three others. The automaker said it would also shutter three service and parts operations by the end of the year — one of which is in Frank's district.

"I greatly appreciate General Motors' willingness to take into consideration the wider needs of the company and especially the community," Frank said in a statement. "Keeping the facility open for this extra time gives workers a chance to look at other opportunities, while at the same time continuing to provide for their families." . . . .


From Bloomberg, here is teh administration's choice to run GM:

Edward E. Whitacre Jr. built AT&T Inc. into the biggest U.S. provider of telephone service over a 43-year-career. By his own admission, he becomes chairman of General Motors Corp. knowing nothing about the auto industry. . . . . . “I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.” . . . .
Why Socialism doesn't work

Why Socialism doesn't work

Americans have learned this lesson the hard way before in their history, starting with the Pilgrims. From Steve Finefrock:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.


After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.


The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)