And A Couple of More Tidbits On Obama’s New Keynsian Economist, Alan KruegerPosted by Al @ 8:38 am
You would expect President Obama to continue loading his administration with big-government-loving Keynesian debt financing advocates. The newest addition, Alan Krueger, is no exception. A read through some of his work reveals what we already expected. More importantly, for whomever is actually pulling Obama’s puppet strings and running America into the ground, he’s another Bill Clinton administration retread.
We have already read that Krueger supports a VAT tax for Americans here in A Future Consumption Tax to Fix Today’s Economy on top of our current income tax. So what else does this Keynesian clown support.
1) He contends that the “banker bailout” TARP was very successful. Yes it was when you define success as the banking industry’s ability to extort taxpayer dollars to support their fraudulent activity and incentivise them to continue this activity knowing that the “too big to fail” propaganda was successfully hoisted on the backs of sheep-like ignorant Americans. Here’s the video of Krueger’s praise.
2) Krueger has spent an enormous amount of effort showing disparities between blacks and whites from a socio-economic perspective. Call him a “pot-stirrer” if you will. Yes, he is a proponent of the ideology that “government knows best”. He advocates from a Progressive’s point of view. In his paper, Inequality, Too Much of a Good Thing, he argues for more government spending to help the uneducated achieve economic prosperity.
The evidence reviewed here suggests to me that allocating more resources to education and training of the disadvantaged could reduce inequality. Such programs could be paid for by rejecting proposals that would exacerbate income disparities, including the elimination of the estate tax or cuts in the capital income tax and top income tax rate. Moreover, as noted earlier, education and training are popular ways to transfer income, probably because of the good Samaritan’s dilemma. Practical political economy constraints limiting the specific proposals for redistributing income that are in the feasible set should not be ignored by economists…
My priority list of education and training initiatives would include: fully funding Head Start and Early Head Start so every eligible child could participate; fully funding Job Corps so every eligible youth could participate; increasing the length of the school year by 30 to 40 days, especially in inner city areas, either by extending the school year or offering summer school vouchers; targeting reductions in class size to low-income areas; increasing the compulsory schooling age to 18; improving the quality of teachers, especially in low-income areas, by raising merit-related pay for teachers and pursuing other initiatives; expanding funding for adult training programs in the current structure of the Workforce Investment Act, and providing income maintenance allowances for up to two years (as is done in Trade Adjustment Assistance) while individuals are undergoing training…
But as a general rule, on the margin, the payoff from public human capital investments seems to be higher from investments in lower income areas than in higher income areas…Heckman (1994) makes the provocative calculation that to restore educational earnings ratios to their 1979 level would require an investment of $1.66 trillion…$1.66 trillion for a major national initiative sounds like a lot less money in 2002 than it did in 1994. The estimated cost of the Bush tax cut from 2001 to 2011 is $1.8 trillion, and another $4.1 trillion from 2012 to 2021.42 The illustrative target of $1.66 trillion does not seem so far beyond reach if there is the collective will to reduce inequality.
3) Krueger, as an uber-Keynesian, does not promote the notion that state and city governments live within their means, but instead participate in “Building America Bonds” as a way to continue unchecked deficit spending to fill in budget gaps. While encouraging governments to perpetuate the debt death spiral, he decries the criticism lodged against the banking industry from the financial boon the banks realized with the excessive fees associated with the bonds’ issuance. You can find his arguments here in the paper, Building a Better Bond. Here’s are a couple of noteworthy quotes from it.
When Build America Bonds were launched, fees these banks, including Goldman Sachs, were able to assess were much higher than those for standard, tax-exempt bonds…But it’s not surprising that fees, initially, were high. No one had ever sold a bond like this before, the structures to do so were not in place—customers had to be found and educated about the project at a time when lending was already tight…
…This kind of spending is necessary to encourage economic activity, create jobs, and build national infrastructure for the future, a key progressive priority…Criticizing the banks for the initially large fees is inimical to the progressive project of making finance sane and sensible again…
4) Well, his co-authored paper, titled Cost, Benefits, Distributional Consequences of Inmate Labor, is the most bizarre argument I’ve heard in some time: unionizing a prison workforce, while they work for the private corporations.
To improve the economic contribution of inmate labor, we propose that private firms be allowed to bid for inmate labor, and that inmate workers be subject to all relevant labor legislation, including the right to collective representation…
…In concert with privatization, we suggest that inmate workers be covered by all relevant labor legislation that applies to private sector firms: including the right to form a union, fair labor standards, and workplace safety regulations…In this situation, unionization may also provide important benefits and protections. In order to maximize their economic contribution, inmate labor needs a negotiating agent aligned with its interests, and a union-like organization could serve as that agent.
This guy is just another Keynesian Progressive tool used by the power broker puppet masters that controlled the Reagan, Bush I & II, Clinton, and control the current Obama administration. So, while we keep pointing fingers and calling out the puppets, the controllers of these clowns are the real cancer in America – the banking interests of the world control the purse strings and the message. It’s become a world whose laws are made by banking interests, for the benefit of the banking interests’ interests, to ensure payment of their interest. Until Americans find a way to dispose the unelected agents of these financial interest from the unaccountable bureaucracies within our federal, state, and local governments, America will continue to be swallowed by moneyed interests.
So, what do you think we need to do to eradicate this cancer? Please comment on the ways we can accomplish this.