Does history repeat itself, or does history repeat itself due to purposeful intervention?

Consider history repeating itself

Say one lived during the Great Depression and made a list, a check list as it were, of policy, politics, antics, regulation, etc. that occurred during the Great Depression under the FDR Administration. The check list would be a "tree" in that each point would have sub-points e.g. how a series of policies failed to improve unemployment, how certain policies were merely class warfare related, union thuggery, regulation and over regulation, general government mysticism, etc.. One then took the points and sub points and turned each item into puzzle pieces that when put together said: Great Depression - FDR Administration. Around 1946 the puzzle pieces were placed in a box and stored away.

Around the inauguration of Obama and the ensuing Obama Administation  one went to the closest shelf and removed the dusty old box from 1946. Each time a policy, politic, antic, regulation, etc. that occurred similar to an item in the Great Depression, you removed the corresponding puzzle piece from the box. As time went by the puzzle pieces would begin fitting together and would begin to shape the word picture: Great Depression - FDR Administration.

As the puzzle began to fit together some puzzle pieces remained in the box: protectionism, subsequent stimulus plans, and socialist marches. However, in short order the puzzle is finished: Senate China bashing bill, Obama jobs bill, and "occupy".

There you are, history repeated itself!


Consider history repeating itself due to purposeful intervention


Yes, history does have a nasty habit of repeating itself. Not only repeating itself, repeating itself in almost verbatim fashion. However, history may very well repeat itself because certain institutions, politicos, pundits, talking heads, social groups, etc. have revised history in such a way that the history is cloaked and doesn't seem to be actually repeating itself.

James and Jane Goodfellow might have great difficulty standing back and reflecting on events and seeing the common thread through the fog of revisionism. Which then begs the question: are the supposed astute, supposed educated, and supposed informed leaders of the revisionist movement merely insidious time bandits who purposely revise to cover up and distort so future generations can not benefit from the knowledge that history repeats itself ?

Stated alternatively, does history repeat itself, or does history repeat itself due to purposeful intervention?

Obama’s proposed Tax Increase aka “Jobs Bill”: political science vs. public choice theory

Obama’s shallow debate points/talking points regarding his “Jobs Bill” and its funding through additional taxes find their basis in the political science concepts of “society” [actually existing rather than merely an abstract idea] and the greater good of politics [the altruistic supposed end game of politics according to political science]. Leaving the realm of political science and entering the realm of public choice theory, Obama's tax proposal and consequential rhetoric is really based on the concept that an individual will support more public goods when not confronted with a cost [the cost borne by others aka millionaire tax].

The economist does, normally, attribute precise meaning to the terms "more" and "less." Moreover, if a similar model of rational behaviour is extended to the collective-choice process, we are able to derive propositions about individual behaviour that are parallel to those contained in economic theory. If the hypotheses are valid, the representative individual should, when confronted with relevant alternatives, choose more "public goods" when the "price" of these is lowered, other relevant things remaining the same. In more familiar terms, this states that on the average the individual will vote for "more" collective activity when the taxes he must pay are reduced, other things being equal. On the contrary, if the tax rate is increased, the individual will, if allowed to choose, select a lower level of collective activity. In a parallel way, income-demand propositions can be derived. If the income of the individual goes up and his tax bill does not, he will tend to choose to have more "public goods."  - James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, 1958

Obama Administration Jobs Bill: which came first the quack or the duck?

“Among the colossal fallacies that keep our economy mired in unemployment, few loom as large as the notion that "creating" jobs leads to growth and prosperity, rather than the other way around. In fact, when jobs are treated as ends rather than means, the perverse effect of pursuing policies designed to artificially inflate employment figures only serves to make things worse.

This conflation of cause and effect lies at the heart of entire schools of economics - a science made more dismal by the fact that whenever policy prescriptions fail to deliver their promised benefits, the proposed remedy is to increase the dosage. How many times would you go back to the same doctor if the medicine he prescribed kept making you sicker?

Yet after watching untold hundreds of billions of dollars in federal stimulus spending evaporate into the ether, here we are at the cusp of a recessionary double dip listening to the president berate us for a lack of willingness to tax, borrow, and spend even more to "create" jobs. Hey, if he walks like a quack and talks like a quack, might 51 percent of the voters eventually figure out that he is a quack?” - Putting the Jobs Cart Before the Growth Horse, Bill Frezza, Real Clear Markets, 09/19/2011

Link to entire article appears below:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/09/19/putting_the_jobs_cart_before_the_growth_horse_99264.html

The Obama Jobs Plan, Centrally Planned Economies, Keynes, and Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit”

"Government is the only enterprise on earth, that when it fails, it just does the same thing over again, just bigger". - Don Luskin, TrendMacro


'The president and his supporters are in the grip of what the economist F.A. Hayek once called the "fatal conceit" -- the idea that politicians can manage an economy according to some overall plan. Their efforts to create "green" jobs, stimulate the economy, redistribute income and manage costs in the health care system are all examples of the fatal conceit run amok. A large and modern economy, made up of hundreds of millions of participants who make spending and investment decisions by the minute, is far too complex to allow for centralized coordination. Such efforts, Hayek warned, invariably make a difficult situation worse'.

‘Hayek was skeptical of Keynes' theory on economic grounds, but even more so on political grounds. Efforts by the state to manage the economy will certainly fail, he argued, but they will not be abandoned. Every failure would instead lead to more ambitious and extravagant policies to reach the elusive goals, until more and more aspects of the economy are brought under government control. This, Hayek argued, was "the road to serfdom." ‘- Manhattan Moment: Hayek's wisdom, rediscovered, James Piereson, Washingtonexaminer.com, 09/28/2011

The link to the entire article appears below:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/09/manhattan-moment-hayeks-wisdom-rediscovered

Notes:

Link to Hayek’s book The Fatal Conceit:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3643985.html


You also might be interested in F.A. Hayek’s speech given at his acceptance of the Nobel Prize 12/11/1974 entitled “The Pretense of Knowledge”. Link appears below:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

Non-existent Green Jobs, MACT, CSAPR and "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." - Barack Obama 01/2008

br />

“Obama’s dreams of green jobs have run into some snags lately. The bankruptcy of solar panel company
Solyndra, which received half a billion dollars in loan guarantees, is not good for the goal of greenifying our lives. Objectively speaking, there is one simple reason that companies like Solyndra just couldn’t make ends meet: the prices that they need to charge for their products are simply too high to create true market demand“.

For instance, the EPA’s Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule (MACT) requires all coal-fired plants to reduce emissions of specific toxic air pollutants like mercury emissions. The problem with this is that it would “require coal-fired power plants to install equipment that in some cases is too expensive to afford and in other cases does not currently exist commercially.”

So essentially, borrowing a phrase from President Obama, “If someone wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them.” This is not some reading between the lines to figure this out, as noted above, this is the actual words spoken by candidate Obama and the MACT rule is the perfect example of it in action. The requirements aren’t just onerous, they’re in some cases impossible to meet which of course results in massive fees levied against the company.

So what is the result of this?

Well this one rule could force enough coal-fired power plant shutdowns to equal about 30-70 gigawatts of electricity across the country. That means that businesses and families will need to move towards more expensive alternatives for energy to keep the lights on. This explains why the administration was so intent on investing in solar energy to the point of ignoring due diligence in favor of “hurrying up.” This standard will lead to double-digit increases in rates in keeping with another famous quote from President Obama where he acknowledged that under his plan “power bills would necessarily skyrocket.” For families that will mean tightening their belts in an economy which they can ill afford to do so. For businesses, it will also mean tightening belts which means cutting corners and yes, cutting jobs.

But MACT isn’t the only rule with alarming implications. The EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) will also target coal-fired power plants. This time it’s to prevent polluted air from crossing state lines. As is the case with MACT, it doesn’t accomplish this in a sensible way that allows the companies managing the plants to stay in business and continue providing power while implementing the changes. Again, it’s overly stringent with unrealistic timelines that are designed to be virtually impossible to comply with.

Brian Shaw of the Washington Examiner notes:

This rule will impose onerous new costs on coal-fired power plants, causing many to shut down, and threaten electrical generation reserve capacity all over the country. These reserve margins are needed to avoid power disruption during times of peak demand. Even temporary loss of reserve capacity risks dangerous blackouts.

In terms of job losses, CSAPR is ahead of the game causing job losses even prior to its actual implementation. Luminant, a Texas energy company, announced a wave of shutdowns and layoffs as the rule’s compliance deadline moves closer”. - President Obama and the EPA’s War on Jobs - by Ben Howe, redstate.com, 09/15/2011

The link to the entire story,President Obama and the EPA’s War on Jobs by Ben Howe, appears below:

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/09/15/president-obama-and-the-epas-war-on-jobs/

　

Obama “Jobs Bill”: ACORN Eligible?

"Section 261 of the bill provides $15 billion for “Project Rebuild.” Grants would be given to “qualified nonprofit organizations, businesses or consortia of eligible entities for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed-upon properties and for the stabilization of affected neighborhoods.” Radical groups like ACORN won’t get the whole $15 billion, though, because they will have to compete with state and local governments for the money". - Matthew Vadum pajamasmedia.com

Link to entire article appears below:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama%E2%80%99s-jobs-bill-makes-acorn-eligible-for-15-billion-in-taxpayer-money/

Obamanomics No-Fly Zone?

“House Speaker John Boehner rolled out the congressional Republican counteroffer to President Obama's American Jobs Act on Thursday. It wasn't a plan for fundamentally changing economic policy in Washington -- the GOP candidates for president will need to do that -- but it does set out the right pre-conditions for jobs and growth. And it establishes a no-fly zone to deter more Obama regulations and taxes that inhibit hiring.

Mr. Boehner emphasized what he called the "triple threat" from government now facing employers: federal regulations, out of control spending and a business-unfriendly tax code.

"Employers will hire if they have the right incentives," Mr. Boehner said, "but the incentives have to outweigh the costs. Businesses are not going to hire someone for a $4,000 tax credit if government mandates impose long-term costs on them that significantly exceed the temporary credit." That's a not-too-subtle shot at the White House, whose plan dangles tax breaks in front of employers in 2012, then snatches them away in January 2013.

The Boehner speech did warn the Democrats that tax increases are not a viable option. The speaker endorsed a regulatory freeze as well. "I would also urge the president," he advised, to "tell every member of his cabinet: 'Until further notice, I don't want anything that gets in the way of private-sector job creation.'" He said he wants to see passage of the REINS Act, which requires congressional review of costly regulations. There was a vague endorsement of tax reform and lower rates on individuals and corporations. And Mr. Boehner expressed high hopes that the congressional "super committee" will come up with the mandated $1.5 trillion in budget savings. One theme of the speech was that deficit reduction is a "jobs program."

This GOP response to the president's jobs proposal was appropriately tough and critical, but the GOP still is missing a concrete and salable economic revival plan. Those who want the Republicans to go big and go radical will be disappointed. Economically anxious independent voters who want to see a fresh jobs agenda from Republicans will have to keep looking. This was a game plan for playing defense, not offense.” - Stephen Moore writing in The Wall Street Journal Political Diary 09/16/2011