Jesse Jackson Jr. Blames The iPad For Killing Jobs
On the House floor back in March, holding an Apple iPad and an Amazon Kindle, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. proclaimed "Let me be clear about a few things. These devices are revolutionizing our country — and they will fundamentally alter how we will educate our children." Now it looks like Rep. Jackson has flipped, and is blaming the iPad for being a jobs-killer:
Here's a great quote about this from Jonah Goldberg, "It’s not often one hears the case for Luddism made with so much earnestness and, not coincidentally, ignorance," in a post on the Enterprise Blog appropriately titled "Somewhere Ned Ludd is Smiling."
40 Comments:
So government does stupid things because (as here) people ask government to do stupid things?
Actually, Jesse Jackson Jr. is right, but he presented it from the wrong perception. Satellites are killing the job base.
That would actually be ok if Satellite investors were in the millions. Maybe your job got downsized, but your investment in satellite technology brings in some residual income.
So, I say, blame the satellites for not sharing the wealth.
What is interesting is that the self-same Mr. Jackson went to the House floor about a month ago - to talk about how wonderful the Kindle and iPad were for education.
http://drtaxsacto.blogspot.com/2011/04/yes-he-really-is-that-dumb.html
Alessandro Machi
I found your "The Cat Who Ate Chase Bank" site interesting, but you should consider changing the following line in the title:
"Chase Bank seems to believe it is above the law and can change terms on their customers with no impunity."
By removing the word no before impunity, it will say what I believe you intend it to say.
As for your satellite comment, as I don't know you, I can't tell how to interpret it. Are you being facetious? Should I chuckle? If you are serious, then I don't understand what point you are making. Perhaps you could explain in more detail.
You should be aware, however, that if you are serious when you claim that Jesse Jackson Jr. is right about something, then I'm already skeptical.
It is a common misperception that advances in technology cuts jobs, or that robust military outlays increase jobs.
"What is interesting is that the self-same Mr. Jackson went to the House floor about a month ago - to talk about how wonderful the Kindle and iPad were for education."
Perhaps Mr. Jackson is learning from our POTUS and is trying to be on all sides of every issue.
He's right, just ask anybody who used to work in the buggy whip factory.
Jonah Goldberg has certainly hit the nail on the head. What's next, outlawing the use of high speed printers to create even more jobs in the publishing industry?
I can understand why the House chamber is so often empty. No one could sit and listen to this type of bilge day after day. Is the Speaker stuck with it? No wonder he frowns so much. And, come to think of it, the former speaker appeared to be brain damaged. Maybe this explains why.
Sean
"So government does stupid things because (as here) people ask government to do stupid things?"
I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I would say, in general that yes, government does stupid things because stupid things are requested. Keep in mind that 'stupid' is in the eye of the beholder.
At other times, I believe government does stupid things without being asked, and without checking with those they supposedly represent.
Maybe Benjamin should remember that the military protect us from tyrants and dictators who suppress freedom and have weak economies. You know, the type of tyrants that Benjamin's candidate Obama and his ilk usually end up praising and admiring.
I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I would say
I'm not referring to anything specifically, just being glib in general.
Keep in mind that 'stupid' is in the eye of the beholder.
I tend to think of "stupid" in this context as meaning:
1. Unlikely to achieve a stated goal because of a lack of understanding of factors affecting progress towards the goal
Sometimes "stupid" is used to refer to someone's setting the wrong goal because of a general lack of understand of reality, but I tend not to use the word for that: as you say, it's too subjective.
At other times, I believe government does stupid things without being asked, and without checking with those they supposedly represent.
Yes, there is that.
Sean
"1. Unlikely to achieve a stated goal because of a lack of understanding of factors affecting progress towards the goal"
That's very good, and I agree. I would have said that if I were a better writer.
"Maybe Benjamin should remember that the military protect us from tyrants and dictators who suppress freedom and have weak economies."
If that were truly their mission, I would have expected troops to be heading for Washington DC by now.
Mr. Ecch:
Actually, if I were to vote today, I might go with Paul Ryan, or maybe even Donald Trump. I think we need to shake things up.
Our military is a federal agency. All federal agenices never face market competition, and must constantly devise "scare stories" to justify their existence. All become coprolite, including the US military.
There is still a misnomer out there that "war spending" creates jobs, ala WWII. Part of the right-wing propaganda tool kit.
Money spent on the military is taxed away--confiscated--from taxpayers in the productive private sector. This does not create growth, it diminishes growth.
If you feel there is a clear and present danger of a military invasion of the United States, you should call someone at the Defense Intelligence Agency, or perhaps call the local nuthouse in your city.
Because barring a clear and present danger, and considering mounting U.S. federal debt, I vote for paying down debt for 10 years or so, and putting the military on a very strict diet.
"...or maybe even Donald Trump. I think we need to shake things up."
This is anther of you attempts to make a joke, right?
"There is still a misnomer out there that "war spending" creates jobs, ala WWII. Part of the right-wing propaganda tool kit."
"right-wing propaganda tool kit"? I wasn't aware that your buddies Paul Krugman and Larry Summers were members of the right-wing.
See what they have said about the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11 and the earthquake & tsunami in Japan. They were ecstatic about the opportunities provided by all those broken windows.
Ron H.
What makes you think Donald Trump would not be an excellent R-Party candidate for President?
He has business experience, he is rich enough not to be bribed, and he is the type to recommend large cuts in useless federal agencies.
He strikes me as the best of the lot.
As to WWII, although many jobs were indeed created by war spending, some of them were less than desirable, as they involved traveling to foreign countries to act as targets. Others, although less dangerous, involved making lots of things that had no practical use, so those things could be shipped to those same foreign countries to be blown up, flown into the ground, or - most efficiently - simply sunk by the shipload before they actually reached their destinations.
Contrary to what one might expect, though, despite all this working and producing, people were worse off than they had been, as things that really mattered to them, weren't available in sufficient quantity to satisfy everyones wants. Meat, butter, rubber, metals, gasoline, and countless other nice things to have were rationed due to shortages created by government policy.
"What makes you think Donald Trump would not be an excellent R-Party candidate for President?"
Donald Trump is an idiot. He wouldn't be where he is today if his daddy hadn't left him well off. He has, over the years, come close to losing it all several times.
Currently, he has begun blathering sheer nonsense, like most potential candidates do. The things he says are laughable.
Here are a few examples:
Gas Prices.
Tariff on Chinese Goods
"I'm richer than Mitt Romney."
Benji,
"What makes you think Donald Trump would not be an excellent R-Party candidate for President?"
Do you ever read anything beyond the headlines? Trump is about as authentically conservative as you are, meaning not at all.
I bet if somebody asked Jackson Jr, he'd agree that the Fed should "run the printing presses until the plates melt."
Trump is deeply flawed; but he is still the best of the lot, I think.
He has risked capital, he has energy, he is not a hate-monger, and he does not blubber about God.
Mitt Romeny (Mr. Socialized Medicine?) Huckabee ("God is why I let mass murders out of prison")?
Michelle Bachman (Agriculture subsidies are good)?
Sara Palin might rank up there with Trump, I give you that.
I had expected a Palin-Bachman ticket, but now maybe the R-Party will go with a Trump-Bachman ticket, or some other dark horse we do not know.
Frankly, I am ready to vote for someone outside of the conventional picks, who might actually hack away at the huge federal bureaucracy-parasite monster we have created.
Benji,
"Mitt Romeny (Mr. Socialized Medicine?)"
Just curious, do you have an issue with multiple personalities, often changing within the same comment? You ENDORSED socialist medicine just today, Mr Milton Friedman incarnate.
"Michelle Bachman (Agriculture subsidies are good)?"
That didn't stop you from pulling the lever for your boyfriend, one of the Senate's biggest Big Ag whores.
"Frankly, I am ready to vote for someone outside of the conventional picks,"
Oh, puhleeze. Come election day you will do what your media masters tell you to do and come back to the loving embrace of your boyfriend. Besides, he swears he won't cut a penny from your Social Security.
Paul-
You are deeply wrong, and crude and coarse to boot.
I take it then, you will vote a straight Republican ticket?
What am I wrong about? Did you NOT endorse socialist health care on this very day? Seriously, I am starting to wonder if you need to see an analyst. Get some help, Benji.
Of course I will vote straight ticket. Unlike you, I don't vote for socialists.
Benji,
Just wondering how this is possible given your unending rants here over the past year or so?
Yeah, I'm voting straight ticket.
Ron 3, Ben 1, Larry -1, Paul -5 ,Sean 2
====================
I have stopped commenting. These are my scores for this thread, based on the strength of your argument, whether I agree with it or not.
For my money, in this thread, Ron scored by far the most points, but lost most of them with equally bad arguments.
Ben was close behind. Paul needs to go back to argument school
Benji
You didn't mention Rand Paul. As president he would likely work hard to return government size and spending to 19th century levels, and to 18th century principles. What could be wrong with that?
"[Trump] He has business experience, he is rich enough not to be bribed, and he is the type to recommend large cuts in useless federal agencies.""
Business experience? You would think so, but have you listened to him lately? He is trying to appeal to everyone by saying different things at different times. Something he and Jesse Jackson Jr. share, as students of the Great Chameleon Obama.
"Michelle Bachman (Agriculture subsidies are good)?"
The fact that her family farm gets subsidies doesn't mean she is in favor of them, and even if she were, that's a minor flaw. You shouldn't really reject a candidate for something so minor.
If we are to reject everyone who gets government subsidies, we will have a really hard time finding anyone at all, as most people have a mortgage, and claim the income tax deduction for it. I know you have spoken out against it in the past. Shall I assume you don't claim your deduction on principle?
I know you aren't looking for a perfect candidate, as you made your previous selection sight unseen. Someone whispered "hopeychangey" into your ear, and you grabbed his lever and pulled it.
So why are you so critical now?
Ron,
Benji probably has no idea Rand Paul is even thinking about running for President. Until a couple months ago, he was calling him "Ryan Paul."
Paul
"Benji probably has no idea Rand Paul is even thinking about running for President. Until a couple months ago, he was calling him "Ryan Paul."
I remember that, and I believe it was you who corrected him. Thanks for doing that, as it's difficult enough even when he uses the correct name.
Benji is unused to hearing politicians speak like Rand Paul does - for that matter, all of us are. Benji may believe he is watching a beer commercial, and not realize he should leave the sound on.
But I like beer commercials--"Tastes Great--Less Filling" was a great campaign.
Doald Trump may take the R-Party nomination. It is going to be a wild ride, friends.
"But I like beer commercials--"Tastes Great--Less Filling" was a great campaign.
Doald Trump may take the R-Party nomination. It is going to be a wild ride, friends."
Nah, you just like the suggestion that if you drink that beer, gorgeous women will hang all over you.
As to Trump, I find it hard to believe that even the RNC can be that dumb.
But then again, they didn't do so well last time either.
idiot
-noun
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient under 25.
3. Carpe Diem Someone who disagrees with Ron H.
"idiot
-noun
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient under 25.
3. Carpe Diem Someone who disagrees with Ron H."
James, if you mean my reference to Trump, I don't really know whether he disagrees with me or not, although he dertainly has some different viewpoints. If he does disagree, I bet he's not aware of it, but if he considers a run for president, I have a feeling he will find out he disagrees with a lot of people.
Have you listened to his nonsensical ranting lately? What do YOU make of it? Is he someone you could support as POTUS?
I left some links in an earlier comment. Check them out for a few fine examples of Mr. Trumps exceptional wisdom.
You understand, don't you, that Benji's comments on the matter are his way of toying with several of us here.
Ron H:
Have you listened to his nonsensical ranting lately?
Is he someone you could support as POTUS?
Perhaps I am becoming a pessimist but it seems to me that “nonsensical ranting” has become the norm of our age. Eliminating all who engage in such and there is no one left. Looking back on the presidents I experienced first hand the only ones I consider up to the job are Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. As for Trump yes I could support him even if I share much of your objection to him. As you should have noticed I believe that this nation is in decline both relative to the rest of the world and in absolute terms and the root of that decline is free trade. I do not believe there will be a meaningful recovery unless and until we impose tariffs. The best we will have without tariffs is an illusion of recovery as we spend borrowed or manufactured money. Illusions that are well documented here. Trump being the only candidate who “may” impose tariffs gets my support. Better a jester doing the right thing than brilliant man doing the wrong thing.
Considering the quality of our founding fathers and the lack of it in our present leaders saddens me. But this is the reality of the world I live in.
James
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with you comment except for your support of tariffs and your condemnation of free trade. It's not likely we will ever agree on that issue.
As I don't see Trump's call for protectionism as a good,thing, he is left, in my opinion, with nothing but his "clownness".
I will be able to support candidates who have serious records of promoting smaller government, less spending, and fewer restrictions on our liberties. I think this is consistent with the philosophies of our Founders, who we both appear to admire.
Ron H,
”I will be able to support candidates who have serious records of promoting smaller government, less spending, and fewer restrictions on our liberties.”
I like the way Lincoln put it:
"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
In my view our government has given us a command economy. Not a clumsy soviet style command economy where we deny the very existence of market forces and insist that a government bureau can make all economic decisions but a very sophisticated command economy where government uses market forces in conjunction with control of the money supply and spending to push rather than force economic outcomes. If you look at the policies of both Republicans and Democrats (and for the record I am a registered Republican) they both constitute “solution by government.” The Democrats are going to use government to give workers what they want and Republicans are going to use government to give wealth what they want. Neither party is willing to let the market work. The Nelson Rockefeller Republicans have rallied and vanquished the upstart Goldwater Republicans and returned the Republican Party to being an echo, not a choice.
Now here is the part you are going to disagree with. The economic history of this country since World War II has been largely driven by dislocations caused by free trade. After the war free trade began to hurt business and they complained about it. Those complaints were ignored by the Democrats who were in charge and had a long history pushing free trade to get lower prices for consumers. By the 1950s Democrats began to get complaints about job loss from free trade. Rather than join Republicans like Barry Goldwater and impose tariffs Democrats stuck to their guns and pushed for even more free trade (the Kennedy Round) but responded to the job loss by expanding government to stimulate jobs. You create a job and government will help you. For example all of the McDonalds I have seen the financials for had direct government aid in the form of loans and/or loan guarantees. Bigger job producers often get exempt from taxes for a length of time. Look at the sweet deals sports teams get to locate in a city.
We are in a boat that is leaking and rather than fix the leak with tariffs we are bailing harder and harder. As we lose jobs to free trade we expand government relief efforts. Once upon a time it worked. We are reaching the limit.
James
"Now here is the part you are going to disagree with..."
Well, you're right about that. I was agreeing up to this point.
I see the period after WWII until the 1970s as one of the most prosperous times in US history. Business flourished and growth was phenominal. Business complaining about "unfair" competition is as old as business and government themselves, and not something I take very seriously.
I don't have a particularly high opinion of business,(neither did Adam Smith) especially large businesses, that seek government favoritism and protection from competition. Businessmen talk of "free trade" and "capitalism", but they aren't really in favor of such things.
Sspecial deals for business such as tax breaks, loan guarantees, and regulations that hurt competition aren't related to free trade.
“I see the period after WWII until the 1970s as one of the most prosperous times in US history.”
I agree. However I would say it was free trade that killed the golden goose. Consider cars for example. The imports of the 1950s were no real threat to American car makers. They were fun to drive and used less gas. But gas was under 30 cents a gallon and the cars had serious deficiencies. I once went for a ride in a really neat British car. It started to rain and my face got wet. The driver went into a puddle too fast and by feet got wet from water coming up the floorboard. Free trade in cars caused little harm until the 1960s when foreign car makers, particularly the Japanese, began to use their cheap labor advantage wisely. By the early 1970s the harm from free trade began to hurt wages. It has been up and down since then but net down.
“…especially large businesses, that seek government favoritism and protection from competition.”
Business seeks free markets for goods the buy and controlled markets for goods they sell. They shield themselves from free market capitalism when they can. Example: I recently went on a trip from California to Florida in a car that requires premium gas. In those states that require gas stations to post the price of all their grades of gasoline the difference between regular and premium is a fairly consistent 20 cents a gallon. In those states where stations are allowed to advertise only the price of regular it is consistently more usually 27 cents a gallon or more. When I pull off the freeway I cannot chose a station with a known price without going to each station and looking. Station protect themselves from the free market by hiding the price.
"Free trade in cars caused little harm until the 1960s when foreign car makers, particularly the Japanese, began to use their cheap labor advantage wisely. By the early 1970s the harm from free trade began to hurt wages. It has been up and down since then but net down."
Let me reword this, & then you tell me if I've preserved your meaning:
"When Japanese cars weren't serious competition for US car makers, there wasn't a problem, but when those upstarts figured out how to compete more successfully, those huge, fully mature businesses that had most of the worlds skill and know-how in the auto business, felt that their virtual monopoly was threatened, and now competition had become unfair. They needed government protection in the form of tariffs and import quotas.
Did that about cover it? Since when is competition a bad thing? It almost always provides a benefit for consumers in the form of lower prices, better quality, and more choices.
As for wages in the auto industry, surely you aren't suggesting that UAW workers have made less over time. In my opinion, high wages and government regulation as well as high taxes have run the US auto makers over the edge. The goose has been killed.
Rather than accept the inevitable, however, the US government has resurrected 2 of the largest corpses as zombies, and keeps them lurching along for a while longer.
James
"Example: I recently went on a trip from California to Florida in a car that requires premium gas."
Well, that's your first mistake.
In those states that require gas stations to post the price of all their grades of gasoline the difference between regular and premium is a fairly consistent 20 cents a gallon. In those states where stations are allowed to advertise only the price of regular it is consistently more usually 27 cents a gallon or more.
Don't you wonder what prompted a law requiring stations to post their prices? Why should it exist? I wouldn't call for a law mandating driver convenience. Would you call for a law requiring restaurants to post their prices in a similar manner, so you could tell from the street what they were charging for meals? How about Starbucks?
How is not displaying prices hiding from the free market? They will certainly inform you of the price before you buy. Is your inconvenience somehow a market failure?
Post a Comment
<< Home