Obama’s Energy Policies Hurt the Poor and Middle Class the Most – Romina Boccia
This SOTU, President Obama called for doubling down on the clean energy industry through energy tax credits and a Clean Energy Standard. The President’s focus on costly and unreliable “clean” energy at the expense of more affordable and reliable energy is cutting deep into Americans’ pocketbooks.
Lower-income households who spent a much larger portion of their income on energy, and senior citizens who have the highest per-capita residential energy consumption, are hurt the most by policies that increase the price of energy. Meanwhile, only the better off are able to place taxpayer subsidized solar panels on their roofs.
The President’s latest decision, to reject the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline offers little relief for those who feel the pain of high gas prices at the pump. At record gasoline prices which are only expected to rise even further, it’s difficult to grasp why the President decided against increasing our energy supplies from our Canadian ally, unless it was a ploy to blame Republicans.
Furthermore, despite a failed attempt at passing economically harmful cap and trade legislation, the President’s administration continues to push forward with questionable environmental policies which curb production of one of the most affordable and abundant energy sources in the United States: coal.
In particular, Environmental Protection Agency regulations are poised to send electricity prices skyrocketing as older plants are forced to shut down and others must undergo expensive upgrades to comply with a litany of rules.
An energy policy which increases the availability of reliable and affordable energy is one that works for all Americans.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. This article is reprinted with the permission of Encounter and The Fraser Institute.
“Capitalism and the Jews” was originally presented as a lecture before the Mont Pelerin Society in 1972. It subsequently was published in England and Canada and appears here without significant revision.
________
I. Paradox Exposed
Postwar Collectivism in the West
Immediately after the Second World War, the prospects for freedom looked bleak. The war had produced an unprecedented centralization of economic controls in every belligerent country. The “socialists of all parties,” to whom F. A. Hayek dedicated his brilliant polemic The Road to Serfdom, seemed well on their way to establishing central planning as the standard for peace as for war, pointing triumphantly to the full employment that had been produced by inflationary war finance as decisive evidence for the superiority of central planning over capitalist chaos. And, if that occurred, there seemed little hope of halting the slide toward full-fledged collectivism.
Fortunately, those fears have not been realized over the intervening years. On the contrary, government inefficiency together with the clear conflict between central planning and individual freedom served to check the trend towards collectivism. In Britain, in France, in the U.S., war-time controls were dismantled and market mechanisms were given greater play. In West Germany, the courageous action of Ludwig Erhard in ending controls in the summer of 1948 triggered the so-called German economic miracle. Even behind the Iron Cur- rain, Yugoslavia broke with its Soviet masters, rejected detailed control of the economy, and treated us to the surprising vision of creeping capitalism in an avowedly communist society.
Unfortunately, these checks to collectivism did not check the growth of government. Rather, they diverted that growth from central direction of the economy to central control of the distribution of the product, to the wholesale transfer of income from some members of the community to others.
The Collectivist Trend in Ideas
Much more important and much more relevant to our society, the favorable trends in the world of affairs were not paralleled in the world of ideas. For a time, there was an intellectual reaction against governmental intervention. Some of us optimistically envisioned a resurgence of liberal values, the emergence of a new trend of opinion favorable to a free society. But any such resurgence was spotty and short-lived. Intellectual opinion in the West has again started moving in a collectivist direction. Many of the slogans are individualist—participatory democracy, down with the establishment, “do your own thing,” “power to the people.” But the slogans are accompanied by attacks on private property and free enterprise—the only institutions capable of achieving the individualistic objectives. They are accompanied by a demand for centralized political power—but with “good” people instead of “bad” people exercising the power.
West Germany is perhaps the most striking example of the paradoxical developments in the world of affairs and the world of ideas. Who could ask for a better comparison of two sets of institutions than East and West Germany have provided in the past two decades? Here are people of the same blood, the same civilization, the same level of technical skill and knowledge, torn asunder by the accidents of warfare. The one adopts central direction; the other adopts a social market economy. Which has to build a wall to keep its citizens from leaving? On which side of the wall is there tyranny and misery; on which side, freedom and affluence? Yet despite this dramatic demonstration, despite the Nazi experience—which alone might be expected to immunize a society for a century against collectivism—the intellectual climate in Germany, I am told, is overwhelmingly collectivist—in the schools, the universities, the mass media alike.
This paradox is a major challenge to those of us who believe in freedom. Why have we been so unsuccessful in persuading intellectuals everywhere of our views? Our opponents would give the obvious answer: because we are wrong and they are right. Until we can answer them and ourselves in some other way, we cannot reject their answer, we cannot be sure we are right. And until we find a satisfactory answer, we are not likely to succeed in changing the climate of opinion.
On Energy, the Two Words Obama Didn’t Say, Say the Most – Nick Loris
President Obama omitted two words from his State of the Union speech, but there’s two words that speak volumes about the president’s direction for America’s energy policy. Keystone and Solyndra.
Oil and Gas Production
With respect to oil and gas production, President Obama ignores the bad administrative decisions and takes credit where credit’s not due. He chose not to mention his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline that would have created jobs immediately and brought much needed oil from Canada to Gulf refineries – all with minimal environmental risk. Despite broad support for the pipeline, the President catered to special interests and rejected the permit.
President Obama did, however, recognize that we need more domestic oil and gas drilling is a positive sign, but recognition does not create jobs. Yes, oil and gas production is the U.S. is up but only as a result of increased production on private lands in North Dakota, Texas and Alaska. On federal lands and offshore, the story is much grimmer. Yes, imports for oil are down but because demand is weaker in this recessionary environment.
It wouldn’t be a State of the Union without President Obama saying that we need to invest in clean energy. But the word “invest” in this sense means borrow and spend and this free lunch thinking is no way to grow our economy. The fundamental problem is that these taxpayer-funded programs do not create jobs; it reallocates them. The opportunity cost of government spending is the lost labor and capital extracted from other sectors (ones that do not need government support) of the economy to artificially support the politically preferred sectors of the economy. No evidence exists to suggest that the government has better knowledge to make investment decisions or to commercialize technologies when the private sector chooses to bypass these opportunities. If there is a role for alternative sources in America’s energy portfolio, it should be dictated by price and competition, not government handouts. As evidenced by Solyndra, subsidies lead to companies spending resources lobbying to create a relationship with government officials that will secure cash grants, tax credits or mandates to benefit their business while crowding out others. It’s this cronyism that denigrates Americans’ view of both government and capitalism. The solution is to end subsidies for all energy sources.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
The director and actress (pictured in front of the Queensboro Bridge in NYC) ended their years-long collaboration after this film, about an eccentric New Yorker who falls for the mistress of his best friend. Allen was nominated for a best writing Oscar.
Amazing story.
January 25, 2012, 10:33 am <!– — Updated: 12:57 pm –>
2012 Oscar Ballot: Cast your votes, create your own Oscars pool and challenge your friends.
When she got the script for “Midnight in Paris,” Letty Aronson, Woody Allen’s longtime producer, wasn’t buying it. “When I first read the script, honestly, my impression was, who’s going to come to this movie?” said Ms. Aronson, who also happens to be the director’s sister. “Nobody even knows Gertrude Stein anymore.”
Mr. Allen disagreed. “Woody felt that you didn’t really have to know those people to appreciate the film,” Ms. Aronson said. He may have been right. The movie, one of the biggest independents of last year, was also the highest-grossing film of Mr. Allen’s directing career, and on Tuesday it earned four Oscar nominations: for best director, picture, original screenplay – his 15th nomination in that category — and art direction.
But even when Ms. Aronson acquiesced to Mr. Allen’s vision, the movie almost didn’t get made. She traveled to Paris several years ago to scout for the shoot, hiring a few crew members, but production there proved too expensive. So Mr. Allen shelved the script for a few years, making other movies in London and New York in the interim, until the French government passed a film tax credit in 2009. Production began in Paris in 2010. (That Mr. Allen cast Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the first lady of France, couldn’t have hurt his standing with the French government.)
Was the script, about a writer (Owen Wilson) who travels back in time to meet great authors of 1920s Paris, based on his own insecurities as a young writer? “Maybe,” Ms. Aronson said. “There’s no question I think that if he were Owen’s age, he would’ve played that part. I know that he’s a very big Fitzgerald and Hemingway fan.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Allen has never campaigned for his movies during Oscar season, and has never shown up when he’s been nominated. “It’s just not his thing, really,” she said. “I’m sure that he is appreciative of and gratified by having been nominated, but participating is not his strong suit.”
Ms. Aronson, on the other hand, will be there. “Absolutely, you can ink me in,” she said.
Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]
I have gone to see Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris” three times and taken lots of notes during the films. I have attempted since June 12th when I first started posting to give a historical rundown on every person mentioned in the film. Below are the results of my study. I welcome any […]
Looking at the (sometimes skewed) morality of Woody Allen’s best films. In the late ’60s, Woody Allen left the world of stand-up comedy behind for the movies. Since then, he’s become one of American cinema’s most celebrated filmmakers. Sure, he’s had his stinkers and his private life hasn’t been without controversy. But he’s also crafted […]
In one of his philosophical and melancholy musings Woody Allen once drily observed: “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” Life tortures Woody Allen posted by Rod Dreher […]
Midnight in Paris – a delightfully entertaining film of wit, wonder and love Have you ever thought that you were born in the wrong time? Since I was a child, I found my love for MGM musicals set me apart from my friends. Are we really out of place, or is a sense of nostalgia […]
Five favorite Woody Allen classics Add a comment Sean Kernan , Davenport Classic Movies Examiner June 11, 2011 Woody Allen’s new film “Midnight in Paris” starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams and Oscar winner Marion Cotillard opened Friday, June 10th at Rave Motion Pictures in Davenport, Iowa. “Midnight in Paris” stars Owen Wilson as a blocked […]
What about nuclear energy, Mr. President? –Jack Spencer
The President insists that he wants to build an economy using American energy resources to create American jobs. Nuclear energy might be a good place to start. America would need approximately 50 new plants over the next 30 years just to maintain the percentage of our electricity that is currently produced by nuclear power. Each of these plants requires around 2400 workers to build and then another 700 are required to operate each plant. Then there are all the workers needed to manufacture the plant components, to produce the fuel, and to manage the waste.
The President, at least rhetorically, understands the potential of nuclear energy. It creates jobs and produces the clean, domestic energy that he claims to want. But when it comes to policies to allow an expansion on nuclear energy, this Administration has fallen short in two regards.
First, like with most other energy related policies, his nuclear energy policies consolidate power in Washington and reject the value of the free market. He wants his bureaucrats to pick what technologies go forward and then to decide which projects get financed.
Second, with his decision to abandon the Yucca Mountain project, the President has moved the nation further from a nuclear waste solution than it has been for three decades. By killing Yucca without any back up plan, the President has introduced immense uncertainty into the long-term viability of American nuclear power.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Unfortunately, the SEC did not do that well down the stretch and teams like Miss St, Arkansas, and Ole Miss played themselves off the bubble. The UT Vols played themselves unto the bubble and would have gone to the NCAA if they had one more victory. At least that is what Calipari said in this article below:
Posted March 12, 2012 at 12:52 p.m., updated March 12, 2012 at 10:33 p.m.
Kentucky head coach John Calipari yells in directions to his team during the second half of an NCAA college basketball game against Vanderbilt in the championship game of the 2012 Southeastern Conference tournament at the New Orleans Arena in New Orleans, Sunday, March 11, 2012. (AP Photo/Bill Haber)
Cuonzo Martin expects Tennessee to be motivated tonight, and stressed the importance of getting off to a quick start in tonight’s NIT game against Savannah State.
Kentucky coach John Calipari believes if the Vols do that, it could lead to a trip to New York City, site of the NIT’s semifinals (March 27) and finals (March 29).
“I would suggest they will have a good run in the NIT — if they choose that,’’ Calipari said on Monday’s SEC coaches teleconference. “A lot of teams go in there and they’re mad about having to play in the NIT. I’ve had teams (at Memphis) that loved it, because of where we were at that time.
“We were trying to make statements; we finished in the (NIT) Final Four a couple times and then we won the NIT. Our teams went in with something to prove.’’
Calipari took Memphis to the NIT Final Four in 2001, won the NIT championship in 2002 and returned to the NIT Final Four in 2005.
Martin believes the Vols (18-14) have plenty to prove in tonight’s game (TV: ESPNU, 8 p.m.) against the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference champion Tigers (21-11) in the teams’ first-ever meeting.
“You have something to prove because you’re playingbasketball and representing the University of Tennessee,’’ Martin said. “As long as I’m here, that should be the case every time we step on the floor.’’
Calipari said he was disappointed the SEC only got four teams into the NCAA tournament, but he suggested it was a case of bubble teams not taking care of business at the league tournament in New Orleans.
“I was sick to my stomach when Mississippi State lost, I was sick to my stomach when Tennessee lost, because then I felt Mississippi was gonna have to beat Vandy to get in,’’ said Calipari, whose Wildcats fell to the Commodores in the SEC tournament title game on Sunday.
“I felt Tennessee, if they had won that (Ole Miss) game, they would have been in,’’ he said. “Some of it falls on us coaches, we have to take care of business, and there are games our teams have got to win.
“The things Tennessee did all year, I’m still convinced they are an NCAA team.’’
The Vols lost in overtime to the Rebels in the quarterfinals of the SEC tournament, 77-72, on Friday night.
Hall Out: Martin said UT junior center Kenny Hall will not play in tonight’s game against Savannah State, and his indefinite suspension will continue to be evaluated “day-by-day.’’
This will be the eighth game Hall has missed since being suspended on Feb. 15, prior to UT’s 77-58 home win over Arkansas. Hall was suspended for conduct detrimental to the team.
Kansas vs. Memphis – 2008 NCAA Title Game Highlights (HD) We are looking at the picks of the Hatcher family in the next four days leading up to the tip off of the big NCAA Tournament on Thursday March 15th. Wilson Hatcher’s bracket looks like this: Four play in games (which are called the First […]
It was hard to listen to but the Razorbacks missed many layups on their way to a 70-54 loss to LSU in the SEC Basketball Tournament. ESPN reported: Arkansas 54 (18-14, 6-10 SEC) LSU 70 (18-13, 7-9 SEC) 1 2 T ARK 28 26 54 LSU 28 42 70 Top Performers Arkansas: B. Young […]
I have been wondering what the result will be in the SEC football rotation in upcoming schedules after 2012. Basketball is working great and the old SEC football schedule rotation worked great but what are they going to do with the 14 schools now? I think it will work best if they go to the […]
I have always admired Pat Summitt’s coaching ability and she did it again yesterday when the Vols won the SEC tournament championship again. Arkansas had a great team this year and even beat the Vols for the first time in Knoxville but the lady Razorbacks lost to LSU in the tournament. Here is a link […]
(I got this picture from Arkansas Times Blog.) I read this below in Scout Magazine and heard a long discussion of it on 103.7 the buzz radio yesterday in Little Rock. Below is an article from Scout.com and it states, “You play your six division mates once, one permanent cross divisional rival and two rotators. N […]
The other day my son Hunter went into a store with his Murray St shirt on and the person behind the counter said, “Now that Murray St is undefeated and ranked in the top ten in basketball everybody is jumping on the bandwagon now!!” My son replied, “My cousin Davis Sayle is a freshman football […]
After getting beat at home by Florida by 30 points (the worst ever loss at Bud Walton) and then getting beat by Alabama at Bud Walton, it appears we have nothing to cheer about at Arkansas. However, hold the presses. The Arkansas ladybacks beat Tennessee for the first time ever in basketball last night. The […]
The so-called War on Poverty has failed. Making government bigger and creating more federal redistribution programs has been bad news for taxpayers. But the welfare state also has been a disaster for the less fortunate, creating a flypaper effect that makes it difficult for people to lead independent and self-reliant lives. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the poverty rate was falling after World War II — but then stagnated once the federal government got involved. www.freedomandprosperity.org
This testimony was delivered on September 20, 2011.
Baseline Projections Are Optimistic
In support of building a large “fiscal buffer,” policymakers should recognize that both short-term and long-term CBO projections are optimistic in various ways. Perhaps the future will include some positive budget surprises, but the big risk factors seem to be on the negative side.
In CBO’s baseline, federal deficits fall substantially over the coming decade, partly due to changes under the recent Budget Control Act. However, spending will be higher than projected if:
Policymakers lift caps in the Budget Control Act.
Policymakers launch new spending programs or respond to unforeseen crises or wars.
Higher interest rates push up interest costs, which is a risk that gets magnified as federal debt grows larger.
A major recession causes large cost increases in programs sensitive to economic cycles, such as unemployment insurance.
Policymakers respond to another recession with costly new “stimulus” plans. The persistence of Keynesian policy ideas in Washington is an important risk to the outlook for federal debt.
There are likely to be negative shocks in coming years that we don’t foresee. Consider that in its January 2008 budget outlook, CBO projected that U.S. economic growth would slow in 2008 but then rebound fairly strongly in subsequent years.15 CBO discussed the risk of a recession, but didn’t foresee the calamity that was already starting. The upshot is that policymakers should take a conservative approach and build a “fiscal buffer” with large spending cuts now before another recession causes the deficit to soar again.
CBO’s long-range projections — such as the “alternative fiscal scenario” (AFS) shown in Figure 1 — are also optimistic. In its basic projections, CBO does not factor in the negative effects of rising spending, debt, or taxes on GDP after 2021, but it does do that in a separate analysis.16 If spending actually followed the course shown in Figure 1, CBO estimates that GDP in 2035 would be up to 10 percent less than shown in the AFS, and GNP would be up to 18 percent less. In turn, spending-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios would be worse than usually shown in long-range budget charts.
Under the AFS, rising deficit spending could reduce American incomes. The CBO finds that real GNP per capita could stop growing in the late 2020s, and then start falling after that. In a historic reversal, future generations of Americans would become successively poorer.
The way to ensure our continued prosperity is to cut federal spending and reduce debt. In a 2010 analysis, the CBO compared the high-spending AFS with Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” plan.17 The Ryan plan would restrain federal spending to roughly current levels for the next few decades, and then start reducing it. By the late 2020s, GNP per capita under the Ryan plan would begin rising above the flat and then falling levels under the AFS. By the late 2050s, GNP per capita would be 70 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under the AFS.18
15 Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018,” January 2008, Chapter 2. 16 See Chapter 2 in Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011. 17 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf. 18 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, p. 16.
More Job Training Programs on Top of All the Other Redundant and Ineffective Programs – David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
Tonight, President Obama called for the federal government to engage in new job training and employment initiatives, especially for the hard to employ.
Before Congress signs off on any new initiatives, we must recognize that President Obama wants to add several new programs on top of the 47 job-training programs already operated by the federal government. Further complicating the matter, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has concluded that there is little evidence that these programs are effective.
When federal job training programs have been evaluated using random assignment to job training and control groups, these scientifically rigorous evaluations overwhelmingly find that these programs are ineffective. For example, Job Corps, the federal government’s flagship program for hard-to-employ youth, has been found to be ineffective on several measures:
Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);
Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;
Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants was only $22 more than the average weekly earnings of the control group; and
Employed Job Corps participants earned $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.
Instead of adding new programs to an already bloated job training system, the President and Congress should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by terminating these programs.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________
HEFFNER: Indeed. You know, I was thinking about, before we began to do this program, I was thinking about where is it written. And I was considering going back to a very ancient civilization, mostly in terms of the reports that we have that you may in your visits to Israel advise the new Israeli government in terms of its economic problems. And I wanted to ask you a question. I wanted to ask you a question about a remark that I had heard you make in connection with this story about the role you might play in relation to the new Israeli government. You said something like this – and to the degree that I’m distorting your words or your thoughts, please correct me – “It is somewhat strange that socialism is supposed to find so many friends, and capitalism so many enemies among Jews when perhaps some people might think that the essence of the Jewish tradition is so alien to socialism and so akin to capitalism.” And I wondered, to the extent that you meant much of that, what you meant by it?
FRIEDMAN: Well, I think I mean, I would endorse certainly that statement as you put it, while going onto say it needs some elaboration in some respects. Let me see if I can put it to you in a sort of a different way. My first visit to Israel was made about 15 years ago. I was there for about three months as a visitor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. And after I left Israel, I summarized my impressions by saying that I thought that the best way to understand Israel was to recognize that two Jewish traditions were at war with one another in Israel. One of them was a very recent tradition, a tradition of 100, 150 years old. That’s the tradition of socialism. That’s the tradition you referred to in your initial comments, that it is true that on the whole the Jewish intellectuals have been strongly pro-socialist. And that’s contributed disproportionately to the socialist literature. That was the one tradition. The other tradition, I said, was a tradition that was at least 2,000 years old. It was a tradition that had arisen during the Diaspora and as a result of the Diaspora. It was a tradition of how you get around government regulations, how you find chinks in controls, how you find those areas in which the free market operates and make the most of them. It was that tradition which had enabled the Jews to survive during centuries of persecution by the constituted authorities. Once in a while there would be a monarch who would intervene in favor of the Jews. But almost always that was because there had been a Jew who had accumulated enough money through the free market, through capitalism, to have loaned money to the monarch and have him in his debt. The story in the Bible of Esther is not a very usual story. That isn’t usually the way it occurs. Most of the time the Jews have survived despite the opposition of the powers that be, not because of them. And this ancient tradition of 2,000 years is still very much alive in Israel. And what I said at that time was that fortunately for Israel the ancient tradition is strongly renewable.
Now, let me go back to that in a modern context. I believe that there are few people in the world who have benefitted as much from capitalism and free enterprise as the Jews. Suppose you ask yourself in what countries it is that the Jews have been able to survive and thrive. They’ve been able to survive and thrive primarily in those countries that have had capitalism and free enterprise. They haven’t been able to survive and thrive in the socialist utopias of Russia or of Poland. They haven’t been able to, they weren’t able to survive and thrive in the national socialist state of Nazi Germany. They have been able to survive and thrive in places like Great Britain, in Germany when it was capitalist before Hitler, in France which is largely capitalist, and the United States. And more important, in what parts of those economies have they done best? In those parts where government has had the least role to play. You do not find in the United states that the Jews have done very well in large-scale manufacturing or in commercial banking, because those are areas which are very closely intertwined with government. In banking you need a governmental franchise. And there is probably no industry in the United States in which there are fewer Jews, surprising as it may seem, in major positions of responsibility than in the commercial banking industry. Where have they thrived? In the industries which have been most competitive, where there’s been the least monopoly, private or public: retaining, which was open to all; in new industries, in Hollywood. Why? Because it was a new, brand new industry. There were no settled positions of privilege or of power, no government involvement.
So, Jews have done best – and other minorities. I’m not only speaking of Jews. If you look at the Japanese in the United States, if you look at the blacks in the United States, in every case they have done best in those areas where you have had the greatest degree of competition; and they have done worst in those areas where you have had the most monopoly and the most governmental link to government. So on the one hand, there are no people in the world who have benefitted so much from capitalism as the Jews. Look at Israel. Suppose socialism had triumphed in the world. How would Israel have gotten support? Did Israel get support in its early and difficult days from the governments of the world? Or from people? And from what people? From the Jews who had managed to make a little bit of a competence for themselves and accumulated a little funds in the capitalist bastions of the world.
So, the Jews have benefitted enormously from capitalism. And yet on the other side – and that’s the issue you raise – here you have the paradox that the Jews have been among those who have contributed much to undermine the intellectual foundations of capitalism.
HEFFNER: Is this a dichotomy that exists in contemporary Israel too?
FRIEDMAN: Of course. Of course. It has existed.
HEFFNER: Then how will you make a contribution?
FRIEDMAN: Oh, well, you know how it is. I will make a contribution. I would be delighted to if I could. But you know, people ask for advice from people who they know will give them the advice they want to hear. Well, there’s no shortage of good economists in Israel. They are very good economists. They know what to do. And in fact, the economists in Israel have not been in favor of governmental policies in Israel. It’s like it has been in the United States, where the economists have been opposed uniformly to many governmental policies, such as the price-fixing policies I was talking about, such as rent control. Similarly, the economists in Israel have been almost unanimously opposed to some, many governmental controls and regulations. What’s happened in Israel is that you now have a new party that came into power. … It’s a party that proclaims it’s belief in private enterprise. It proclaims its desire to reduce the size of government and to give greater opportunities to individuals. Their objectives are excellent. I hope they achieve them. I’m not wholly confident that they will, in fact. I have many doubts about whether they will succeed. And a reason why they have asked me if I would advise them is because they know that I believe in a free economy and that their policy is my policy. And insofar as I can give any assistance, I am delighted to, both because of my general desire to see freedom prosper, and also because I have a very strong personal sympathy and interest in Israel. I am Jewish by origin and culture. I share their values and their belief. I share the admiration which many have had for the miracles that have occurred in Israel. So if I can make any contribution to a more effective policy for preserving Israel, Israel’s freedom and strength, I would certainly be delighted to do so.
I am an avid reader of the National Review and I remember watching those famous debates at Harvard between John Kenneth Galbraith and William Buckley. You probably were at some of those debates. Below is a portion of an article that talks about your recent State of the Union address:
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
This was a 2012 campaign speech poorly disguised as a State of the Union Address. But mostly, it was incoherent.
How far we have come in this mishmash from seas rising and temperatures cooling! Obama took credit for things that happened over his opposition, kept silent about his failures (especially the debt), omitted his “successes” (Obamacare) and largely made things up as he hoped and changed his way through. No one listening to Obama would ever dream that we are up to $16 trillion in debt, facing an implosion of Medicare and Social Security, and have a nonexistent housing market, high unemployment, and soaring gas and food prices.
Some details: The war on terror and Iraq are praised for having brought results, but unmentioned is that Obama once opposed all the very protocols and policies that he inherited — and now embraces.
September 2008 was just yesterday, frozen in amber as Obama’s talisman that wards off all responsibility for 2009–2012; the three-and-a-half years in between never happened.
The Democratic Congress’s $4 trillion-borrowing between 2009–2011did nothing; one year of a Republican House wanting a stop to the debt apparently means killing jobs.
The evil Chinese found a way to make things more cheaply than we did and must stop it.
Given soaring gasoline prices and Solyndra, green was sorta then, and natural gas is sorta now. So Obama takes credit for oil and gas production, but to do so shamelessly must tell untruths: Gas production is up only because of someone else’s private genius utilizing fracking and horizontal drilling — in spite of Obama’s cutting back on 40 percent of federal leases, EPA bullying, cap-and-trade utopianism, and his administration’s canceling things like Keystone — and gasoline demand is down because his economy has been so bad the last three years.
Wall Street greed must be watched. That’s why Obama has hired three straight Wall Street multi-millionaires who made their fortunes on Wall Street — much of it from the Freddie/Fannie bubble he serially faults others for.
Losing millions of jobs between 2009–12 was all Bush’s fault, gaining back less than half of them was all to the credit of Obama.
If the Hoover Dam is now Obama’s model, then canceling the massive Keystone Pipeline was his missed chance.
Every corporation must pay their fair share — perhaps even non-income-tax-paying Obama pal GE’s Jeffery Immelt?
Schools should be much more flexible — that’s why Obama opposed charter schools and backs teachers’ unions. Dropouts drop out not on their own volition, but because they can’t stay on the premises and therefore won’t be allowed out until they turn 18.
Obama wants job training instead of unemployment entitlements, but that’s why he vastly expanded the latter.
Outsourcing is bad, but we brag on a globalized Siemens when it outsourced European jobs to hire Americans. Somehow Wall Street (without help from Fannie and Freddie insiders and incompetent or risk-taking buyers) forced houses on the innocent who did not know what they were doing.
Illegal aliens somehow dropped in; none willingly broke the law getting or staying here.
Cutting deficits is critical; that is why Obama ran up $6 trillion in four years.
A man who tried to prevent up-and-down votes while was a senator no longer likes that as president.
Reaching out to Syrian dictator Assad and restoring diplomatic relations with him was part of the Obama plan to see him gone.
Reset with Iran was then, threatening it is now.
The worst relationship in history with Israel is really the strongest.
Massive defense cuts are proof of a brilliant Obama new strategic reassessment.
And on and on, with not a word about looming financial insolvency and a ruined health-care system. In Obama’s peasant idea of a limited good, a few bad guys get ahead only by ensuring lots of good guys don’t.
One bright note: In a brief, matter-of-fact rebuttal, Mitch Daniels said more in ten minutes than Obama did in over an hour — in over three years, in fact — and more than all the Republican candidates have said in four months.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of the just-releasedThe End of Sparta. You can reach him by e-mailingauthor@victorhanson.com..
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Frederick M. Brown/Getty ImagesLetty Aronson at the Producers Guild Awards on Saturday.
The Daily Hatch 