The New Republic

Somehow, sadly, I don't associate Obama with the "fierce advocacy" that Bernstein rightly calls for. I hope I'm wrong. On the substantive policy level, I don't get this argument by Bernstein: "To make a convincing pivot, he should avoid talking about debt and instead build the case for government’s integral role in the economy right now." Yes, Obama should emphasize jobs, but why is this mutually exclusive with addressing people's concerns about the debt? A stimulus will create jobs; jobs will create tax revenue; that revenue will diminish the deficit. Contrast that with job-killing, revenue-reducing austerity. And fiercely make that case. Which brings me back to where I started, and the hope that I'm wrong.

- Thunderroad

August 24, 2011 at 1:22am

Finally, an "Is There Anything That Can Be Done?' participate talking a modicum of sense. Bernstein still suffers from a touch of small-potatos syndrome. Just because a $2 trillion stimulus reboot is a political impossibility--assuming that to be the case--doesn't mean that we should avoid all discussion of it. If big stimulus spending is the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do, and whether or not we can reach agreement to do this right thing is another matter entirely.

- AaronW

August 24, 2011 at 1:38am

I totally agree that President Obama should fight for something. Considering that there is no low hanging fruit and we are jammed up with conflict, it would take great vision and persuasive powers. The problem, as I see it, is the President has been so focused on staying in the middle that he looks nowhere outside the boundaries of where we are to plot a course driven by his imagination. The task is even harder because, unfortunately, the last administration scared us into a war with nothing but imagination.

- Nusholtz

August 24, 2011 at 3:11am

I have deep respect for Jared Bernstein as economist, and was sorry he did not get called up to join Obama's team as it disappeared. Uncertainty damages confidence, and it is now too big a chasm in expecting general confidence to suddenly revive. "fierce advocacy"??? 130 million Americans have jobs, but housing purchases of both existing and new are at half the normal level for our population. and, there is nowhere to go for a home improvement loan - not when BoA has decided that the APR for unsecured loans based on the prime rate in 2012 is going to be 18.99%, which is what their mailer said on Monday, up from 10.99% in the same mailer I got last Friday. Ok, maybe BoA IS under-capitalized, but cheap money is NOT trickling down to the consumer level.

- K2K

August 24, 2011 at 6:47am

We are about to see if Obama's strategy in focusing on the deficit this summer was intended to get that issue off the table and unemployment back on the table. And that, I believe, is Bernstein's point. Anybody who has taught children knows that you must first get their attention, which often means diverting it from something else. Of course, success depends on willing students, and I believe Americans, who pride themselves on a can-do attitude, would be more than receptive to a message that we can fix what is wrong; indeed, I like the contrast between the can-do message and the Republican do-nothing message. I'd start with a specific "economic recovery tax cut", a one-year (extended to two if unemployment remains high) payroll tax holiday, not the miserly 2% but the entire payroll tax including the employer's share for new hires. And when the Republicans try to block it, I'd show the comparison between the tax cut Obama prosposes and the tax cut the Republicans support, and highlight the difference for the roughly 80% of working Americans who pay more in payroll tax than income tax. Obama's reticence in defining an Obama tax policy is baffling. It's time to change that.

- rayward

August 24, 2011 at 7:36am

This pretty much reprises the argument that AaronW and I have been making to wkwami. I don't think it is too late for Obama to change public perceptions of both him and the issues we face -- and possible even produce policy movement. But it is going to take a lot more than three days on a bus tour.

- roidubouloi

August 24, 2011 at 9:07am

We've seen BHO in action-- or mostly too-little action too-late on all sorts of economic and domestic issues. You all that are not Panglossian Obamaphiles can list them as well as I. Expecting a chamnge in behavior from Carter/Hoover-like to Truman like is highly unlikely. Chait calls it magical thinking when others do it. Furthermore, there is little evidence that BHO understands or supports Keynesian economics.. Or has any plan that has significant effect ---It's mostly about some talking points. He's the equivalent of a Hooverian-physicist-President who authorizes a kill shot on an incoming ICBM on his understanding that F=mv. E=mc, and gravity has no effect once you get beyond the stratosphere. Each relation sounds reasonable-- and you could get at least 80% of voters to back the math. It's BS.

- drofnats1

August 24, 2011 at 9:25am

drof may well be absolutely correct. But I think we should urge that Obama try and give it his best shot. He is a gifted individual. Perhaps he can understand the nature of the crisis and rise to the occasion. I would not claim to be optimistic. If Obama and the Democrats are going down anyway, drof will soon enough have the crisis that he believes to be the only thing that will produce the necessary counter-reaction.

- roidubouloi

August 24, 2011 at 9:55am

Roi. I agree that the crisis need come quick. That's way my posts for 6 months were "Pray the debt-limit negotiations fail" because BHO will negotiate a Hooverian compromise that almost-certainly ensures a crisis 6-12 months thereafter. Just in time for the election. And Keynesian economics will be blamed--- just like Newtonian physics would be declared a failure in my previous example and the rusulting disaster would "prove" that the only answer is to leave everytrhing in the hands of a fundamentalist God (pick your religion). As you said earlier, like Chamberlain, BHO debt limit compromise dishonored him. He did it to avoid an immediate economic crisis like Chamberlin compromised at Munich to avoid immediate war. As predicted by Churchill, Chamberlain got war -- and BHO will get his economic crisis. A crisis in the next 3-4 months would do it. Recall that McCarthy challenged LBJ (who I also like and sat beside for a year at UT football games) in the spring of 1968. McCarthy smoked out RFK-- who would probably have beaten RMN, as woud H Humphrey, if he had separated himself more effectively from LBJ in August, rather than October, of 1968. Were the Repubs REALLY better off sticking with H Hoover in 1932? Hoover was bright, nice, and a great humanitarian --- and the right Prez for different times.

- drofnats1

August 24, 2011 at 10:21am

Were the Repubs better off sticking with Hoover as a matter of politics or policy? Politically, they probably would have done no better with someone else. Where is the example of an incumbent who does not run for a second term whose party wins never-the-less? The country surely would have been much worse off if FDR had not been elected, for more reasons than I can count. However, we are faced with a situation today that is rather extraordinary -- a major political party that is completely dominated by out and out nuts, complete fruitcakes. I didn't like the Republicans of the 60s or 70s, but I was not afraid of them in the way I am afraid of the Republican party since Reagan appeared. These people make Goldwater look like a very moderate fellow. With Reagan, the Republicans stepped off the edge of reality into some weird alternative place of magic, religious zealotry, and outright psychosis. Should we not be afraid? Look what Bush did to the country in only eight years. We were the sole super-power, an unrivaled economy, and he broke it. Look at us now.

- roidubouloi

August 24, 2011 at 11:00am

I would be interested to know how Bernstein games out his percentages for the payroll tax extension and the unemployment benefits extension. There is no mention of that in this slim contribution. Also, isn't it fair to assume that any extension of those measures would require giving Republicans things they want that this country can't really afford anymore -- like another extension of the Bush tax cuts?

- wildboy

August 24, 2011 at 11:01am

"Where is the example of an incumbent who does not run for a second term whose party wins never-the-less? " Thank you, Roid. Off the top of my head, the last time that happened was with Calvin Coolidge in 1928. Which was under economic and political circumstances so vastly different from those we have today, it might as well have been in another universe. BTW, if you don't consider Coolidge (and TR before him) to have been incumbents who chose not to seek a second term (because both were VP's who actually took over for their respective deceased Presidents and then stood for re-election), I think you need to go back to Rutherford Hayes in 1880. And those were kind of special circumstances, what with Hayes having won a disputed election in 1876 and taken office on a tacit understanding that he wouldn't seek re-election in his own right.

- wildboy

August 24, 2011 at 11:06am

While you begin to point to feasible directions for the President to take, in my view the turn around of the economy lies in two NON-governmental directions. One is that the media need to stop focussing on the negatives, and begin focusing on what has NOT gone wrong. For example, we are continually pummeled with the unemployment statistic, not the unemployment statisticS. July BLS data shows that, while the total US unemployment number is 9.1%, fully 25 states have numbers lower than that, ranging from 4.1% in Nebraska, to 8.1% in Delaware. The nine states with unemployment numbers higher than 9% drag down the 25 with lower numbers. And the 25 are not only small, farm based states, either, they include: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin. This good news should receive more attention from the media. The "sky is falling" is 9 states in a big way; but it is decidedly NOT falling across the US! Secondly, we need to stop looking solely to government, specifically to the President, to solve our economic problems. Statistics show that profits are at an all time high, and taxes on the "job creating class" are at all time lows. Tax policies established in the second Bush era were extended months ago, but job creating, demand enhancing investments have NOT increased in the private sector. When S&P dropped its rating of the Nation, huge caches of cash flowed, NOT into expansionary investment, but rather into low return Treasuries! It is time to put the focus on PRIVATE sources of growth, and OFF of government. Yes, infrastructure needs attention; energy waste needs to be curtailed; but improving these situations is NOT solely up to government. With ever increasing boluses of investable capitol available, it is time for private money to be brought to the table. Not only will the future profitability of industry be improved, but current joblessness will be reduced, and the needed demand will be increased. No need to wait for a dysfunctional Federal Government to fix the economy; Economy, Fix Yourself!

- namobo

August 24, 2011 at 11:31am

How many special circumstances make an example?? Coolidge, Hayes, Pierce?? And you insist that History can never change?? HH came very close to beating RMN. And the Repubs would have been no worse running someone other than their HH in 1932. In fact, in terms of their "immediate" prospects in 1936 -48, much better off. The Dems ran against HH for a generation. You all seem happy to have the Repubs do likewise with BHO.

- drofnats1

August 24, 2011 at 11:36am

namobo You might be right that the economy can fix itself in the long run, but for most people, the run is too long. Besides, we are huge consumers. Other countries like us because we are huge consumers. Our math textbook story problems consist of people buying things. Advertisements telling us to go out and buy are ubiquitous here -- drive down the road, walk down a city street, go on the internet, buy a newspaper or a magazine, listent to radio, turn on the T.V. But, the wealth disparity created by our tax system is killing the consumers and I think government can play a role in supporting consumption.

- Nusholtz

August 24, 2011 at 11:49am

I second Thunderroad's comment that we hope in vain to see some "fierce advocacy" from Obama. You want to see fierce advocacy, look at some of the old video clips of Teddy Roosevelt waving a fist in the air as he excoriated "the malefactors of great wealth" that he despised so thoroughly. With Obama, we get a carefully modulated speech, one more fruitless plea for bipartisanship, and then mostly silence. Maybe it will be different this time, but verbal thunder and a relentless attack on the GOP just don't seem to be his style, regardless how crucially they are needed to rouse public opinion. And so, Republican lies will once more prevail.

- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old

August 24, 2011 at 12:21pm

"American people don’t believe the government can help on the jobs front (a pathetic 26 percent have confidence in Washington’s ability to solve economic problems)" Therein lies the biggest problem for Obama to overcome. The very same people who poopoo the Government's ability to create jobs also think that Obama hasn't done enough to create jobs! So how do you overcome the instinctual and born-in-trait that a vast majority of Americans have - that being that they hate the government that they love so much. Obama has to overcome the public's negativity view of Government(bad) vs. government(good) by focusing on what the government can do. He also has to stop listening to the Hooverites in his cabinet (Daley, Plouffe, etc) and start thinking and acting in a more Keynesian fashion. If Obama is willing and able to move the public in the Jobs Programs (stimulus) direction and the polls show a trend then I think the pressure will be for the Congress to act in favor of the jobs proposals. Obama will have to keep hitting the lecturn to drive home the point that Congress needs to get behind the jobs creating programs or get out of the way come 2012. BHO has to drum it into the America people that government (good) can create the stimulus (err...demand) for jobs at all levels of the private sector. He does this with multiple proposals for various sectors of the economy simultaneously and not in some omnibus sort of "big idea" proposal. I think Bernstein's FAST idea is a good one. An idea that could be built upon for other sectors of infrastructure that are crumbling. A catchy acronym for highway & bridge rebuilding (ROAR) "Rebuild Our American Roads", a catchy acronym program for R&D in the technology sectors for renewables (REAP) "Renewable Energy for America's Progress", a catchy acronym program for retooling American manufacturing skills (MASTT) "Make Americans Skilled for Today & Tomorrow". All of these represent the ability to put out pieces of another stimulus package that might have better chances of being pushed through versus one big stimulus bill. Once we get people back to work with immediate work programs, we can start to focus on tax reforms, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, restructure how we deal with SS & Medicare, extending unemployment benefits but tying those benefit extensions to job seekers in the sectors getting the stimulus monies and not simply for the generic "i'm looking" applications to Wal-Mart. As we ease out of the immediate unemployment crisis, we can also move each of the earlier acronym work programs into a centralized infrastructure bank. Since each of these programs will have had the opportunity to be able to prove itself effective or not, and this would decrease the ability of the GOP to kill the infrastructure bank outright. If you get people back to work immediately, the reforms that are needed for the long term structural issues will be easier to address. Especially when the people who need work or more work don't feel like the Government and Congress are taking the bread out of their hands as they try to eat.

- singlspeed

August 24, 2011 at 12:49pm

I hear you drof, DaveyD and the rest of you, on Obama's baffling reticence and lack of boldness on economic policy and message crafting. It feels particularly odd to me in light of his instincts on foreign policy. He seems close to lizard blooded fearlessness to me in this realm, especially considering the multi-faceted nature of the challenges. His technocratic impulses, balance of soft/hard power and intuitive feel for bold, risky action have been superb. He's been a true leader with demonstrated success (and yes, failures all his own as well). My miitary family all have great respect for his abilities in this way. But on the economy? The guy who: gave the kill shot order for Obama, closed us out of Iraq, jujitsued Iran with Russia (!) as our partner, displayed great steadiness and discipline during the Green Revolution in Iran, both scolded and reached out to the Muslim world knowing it would incite the nitwits in America, utterly ignored Bibi's lies and bullying, doubled down on Afghanistan - all at great political and military risk - folds at the first grumble from some dumbass winger on tax policy. Let's not even go in to Wall Street. It's just weird.

- WandreyCer

August 24, 2011 at 12:56pm

let's make that "kill shot order for Osama", shall we?

- WandreyCer

August 24, 2011 at 12:58pm

Very good insight, WC. Obama takes risks abroad but is largely risk averse at home. And while some may differ with specific aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with you that on balance he's done a fine job dealing with a daunting array of challenges. I think the the reason for his being strong abroad but weak at home, especially re economic policy, is that his political advisers and quite likely his political instincts play less of a role regarding foreign policy. Obama most likely feels less constrained when acting as Commander in Chief and foreign policy leader. The political advisers and considerations are considered, I am sure, but overall less of a presence in those realms. At home, particularly regarding economic policy, politics trumps all for him. Elizabeth Drew wrote a superb piece this month for the NY Review of Books, dissecting the debt ceiling debacle. I wish she'd focused more on Obama's political calculations, but several paragraphs into the second (web) page she boils it down to two arguable (in her view) assumptions by his political advisers: 1. that in the wake of the 2010 election the public wanted Obama to cut spending and 2. he best appeals to independents who will decide the 2012 race by, above all, appearing more reasonable than his opponents. You, I and many others here will agree with Drew that the assumptions are arguable...in fact, we'd probably go beyond that to call them mistaken. And there are no doubt other considerations factoring into Obama's weak-kneed economic policy approach--his political philosophy, his personal style, the influence (or perhaps lack thereof) of his economic advisers, etc. But the bottom line, again, is that politics trumps all, even if Obama's political calculations may well be erroneous. Anyway, here's the for the Drew piece: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/aug/18/what-were-they-thinking/?page=1 As for the possibility that Obama will pivot toward a much more assertive, jobs-oriented stance next month, I remain doubtful. But to the extent that he does, I would hope that he could emulate Teddy Roosevelt in some ways but not others. That is, in foreign policy, O has been TR-like in the sense of "Speak softly and carry a big stick." This would translate well to the domestic front (and ironically, that TR quote actually originated in the context of facing down a political opponent while he was NY Governor, not in the context of foreign policy). While it might be satisfying for many of us if he thundered, TR-like, for jobs and against the elitist Republican policies, that's not who Obama is. But much more importantly, that's not who he can be to succeed politically. As Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and MSNBC astutely observed during the 2008 campaign, Obama has to come across as the least aggrieved black man in America. In line with that, a black president can't thunder the way a white one can, for fear of alienating voters influenced by conscious or subliminal racial stereotypes. But that's not an absolute obstacle for Obama. He may not be the communicator Reagan was, but he can borrow from that book (and from speaking softly but carrying a big stick) by being politically firm while personally amiable and, as roid has repeatedly emphasized here, by mobilizing a message and media campaign that extends far beyond giving a speech or conducting a bus tour. But enough wishful thinking for today...

- Thunderroad

August 24, 2011 at 1:47pm

Thunderroad, you're probably right about Obama not being able to rail against the GOP the way a white president could for fear of being perceived as "an angry black man." It's a difficult situation for him. But at the very least, he'll have to keep his jobs program front and center and keep pointing out that it is Republican intransigence, not his "failed leadership," that is keeping the unemployment rate high. If he can't thunder, he can at least repeat, repeat, repeat. He has to stick the knife in and keep turning it. But can he even be expected to do that much? If he says one more word about bipartisanship, I think he's hopeless and the game is lost.

- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old

August 24, 2011 at 2:23pm

One can be an advocate without being strident. I don't buy the notion that Obama is afraid of annoying the GOP or of being perceived as an "angry black man." He has shown intermittently that he can be a very powerful advocate while still maintaining a dignified demeanor. It seems to me plausible that Obama is in fact not an adherent of Keynesian economics; that he is philosophically center-right on economics, and is in fact a deficit-hawk. Wouldn't that explain an awful lot that seems inscrutable to liberals and progressives? Dhurtado

- NR143296

August 24, 2011 at 3:10pm

Wandrey. I generally agree with you on foreign policy analysis of BHO-- albeit, there's one big elephant in the room being ignored. It's call Afghanistan. BHO most wisely would have declared victory and withdrew two years ago. It may yet be his Vietnam (note that, roi)-- and unlike LBJ, he won't have a big domestic-program success for a legacy.

- drofnats1

August 24, 2011 at 3:11pm

Davey, I agree. And not only do he, his staff and allies need to keep repeating the positive message, but there's much to be said about reminding voters about the GOP's lack of credibility on the economy and a host of other issues. It is, after all, the party that got it wrong on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, excessive deregulation, Katrina, ad nauseum. And the fact that the Dems played along in some instances (most of all, Clinton's Rubin-inspired deregulation) doesn't absolve the Republics of the bulk of the blame. NR, I hate to say it, but you may well be right about his right-center messaging actually reflecting right-center economic policy preferences. That would indeed explain a lot. I still prefer to chalk it up the lousy messaging to political calculation, on the theory that the guy is surely intellectually astute enough to agree with most economists. But I have to confess that I can't fully back up that explanation.

- Thunderroad

August 24, 2011 at 5:18pm

I wasn't plumping for Obama, drof, by noting that LBJ's failure was not in undertaking too much. His failure was due to the war in Vietnam. That's just the historical fact. Says nothing about Obama one way or the other.

- roidubouloi

August 24, 2011 at 5:33pm

I reckon the supposed "angry black man" constraint on Obama's behavior has been oversold. It's an easy one for pundits to trot out because it seems germane to a wide variety of discussions regarding the president and because there neither exists nor can there exist any data either to support or refute it. "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Obama if he showed more anger?" is not a poll question likely to yield predictive data. What is more probable is that over the course of his lifetime Obama's personal style has been shaped by his perceived need to avoid appearing angry.

- AaronW

August 24, 2011 at 5:45pm

Great posts Thunderroad. I tend to agree with the angry black man issue. So much of the prejudice is unconscious, as Obama well knows. We're all socialized in the same soup, the fears of an angry black man are not necessarily out of nefarious intent (as Obama also well knows). With Obama, there is probably a gestalt of temperment and the awareness many men of color have that they have to watch themselves. But Obama missed the speech in life that said life is fair and just works with it. I always admire that in Obama - he doesn't complain, ever.

- WandreyCer

August 24, 2011 at 6:28pm

I'm gonna play McLaughlin Group and make my predictions: GOP nominee: Mitt Romney 2012 presidential election winner: Barrack Obama 2012 House: Republican but by smaller margin than at present 2012 Senate: Republican by one or two seats, not because of GOP coattails but purely because of the number of Dems vs Repubs up for re-election and the fact that the generic anti-Congress, anti-incumbent mood this time around will hurt Dems a lot more than Repubs Unemployment rate on Election Day: 9.7% Unemployment rate on Inauguration Day: 9.9% Unemployment rate at time of 2014 SOTU: 9.6% Number of major riots in US cities by time of 2014 SOTU: zero Probability that SCOTUS will have overturned individual mandate provision of ACA by time of 2014 SOTU: 75% Supreme Court appointments by second-term Obama that get Senate approval: zero

- AaronW

August 24, 2011 at 7:02pm

I generally agree with your predictions, except I 'd bet the nRepub nominee isn't mittens. If it is, mittens wins. AND..im any event--- for that you wish to re-elect BHO?? Take no chance on a Progressive challenger?? Appalling.

- drofnats1

August 24, 2011 at 11:42pm

@namobo Unemployment at 9.1% only shows the laid off W2scurrently receiving unemployment checks. There are millions of unemployed W2s no longer receiving unemployment, and also millions of unemployed 1099s who are not eligible for unemployment under any circumstances. These are the facts behind the low approval rates for Obama. Launching one fad after another, such as the new one called FAST in the article, will not change the fact, that business planning is done for a period of 5 to 7 years. A 2 year tax break is meaningless for anyone who is not a fly-by-night lil joint, but a serious business owner. And FAST is supposed to run for 12 months till November 2012? The Green Jobs fad has failed, it's fun to hear less and less "solar" nonsense. A photodiode is a semiconductor device, which has to undergo hundreds of chemical processes to be used as a converter of the light into current or voltage. It requires such chemicals as HF or H2SO4 and many others very tightly controlled by the EPA, which stops the economies of scale from having their usual effect. It's a super dirty energy initiative, even the spent chemicals from the solar panel production are downright awful. That "jobs program" could not possibly take place in the real world as a political initiative. But, Bernstein still thinks "clean energy" fad can do Obama some good. I have news for you. Obama has been doing what he believes needs to be done for almost 3 years now - building the economy. In his world the word "economy" means a collection of government programs with no cost of capital. That economy is doing fantastic. And I suspect Bernstein knows it, that's why his fadulous recipe for Obama's re-election is to launch more loud fads. If you are talking about the entrepreneurial economy, which is what most Americans think about when they say "economy", that to him is something cruel, anfair, abominable and otherwise unworthy of anything but nationalization.

- SayNo2TAM

August 25, 2011 at 3:05am

drof, I don't wish to re-elect BHO. I've been quite definite about that. I merely predict that he will be re-elected.

- AaronW

August 25, 2011 at 8:35am

Where to start with SNO2TAM's post? Apparently, the solution to put the millions of unemployed W2s and 1099s is to wait for one and two-person entrepreneur start-ups to get enough funding from the banks to put folks back to work making ipad apps. Let's see...we only need 2 million entrepreneur start-ups by end of the year. "Launching one fad after another, such as the new one called FAST in the article, will not change the fact, that business planning is done for a period of 5 to 7 years. A 2 year tax break is meaningless for anyone who is not a fly-by-night lil joint, but a serious business owner." The point of Bernstein's "Fad" proposals isn't to nationalize the unemployed workers and put them in gulag-like camps for picking potatoes. The point of Bernstein's proposals are for fast-start-up infrastructure programs that would not be possible under Obama's infrastructure bank. Quickly being able to put out projects for private sector companies and start-ups to put people back to work physically rebuilding the country it what is needed. Banks aren't lending to small businesses. Even with stellar credit. And while small-businesses may have 5-7 year business plans, a good majority operate on small & short-term margins where a 2-year project can mean staying on the path to reach their 5-7 year goals. "The Green Jobs fad has failed, it's fun to hear less and less "solar" nonsense. A photodiode is a semiconductor device, which has to undergo hundreds of chemical processes to be used as a converter of the light into current or voltage. It requires such chemicals as HF or H2SO4 and many others very tightly controlled by the EPA, which stops the economies of scale from having their usual effect. It's a super dirty energy initiative, even the spent chemicals from the solar panel production are downright awful. That "jobs program" could not possibly take place in the real world as a political initiative." This sounds like someone who simply and only focuses on "solar" as the only component of either energy efficiency/sustainability or "green" jobs. And while the manufacturing intensity of solar panels is high, the costs are slowly coming down. The alternative solutions do exist and are scalable but the US has no political will to see it through. Even though the "fad" has been around for 40+ years. Yet the "fad" of green jobs is predicted to grow at 9.1% rate over the 3.7% growth rate of "traditional" jobs. The focus / goal of Obama's "green" jobs initiative was to provide grant money to local communities to generate their own job sector for implementing energy efficiency improvements for building owners. In fact, in the private sector, companies are growing exponentially addressing building energy efficiencies. The purpose of Obama's initiative wasn't to have a bunch of "government worker bees" with hardhats and toolbelts installing windows. It was a broad spectrum approach across several manufacturing sectors that create components, products, efficiency technologies. Those manufacturing sectors are predicted to grow at 26% vs. 9% in the traditional manufacturing sectors. What Obama could propose and what Congress should do is implement "fad" programs that provide seed and start-up money for entrepreneurs and small-businesses in sectors that would provide the biggest potential for growth and have a net positive impact on the country's unemployed as well as providing jobs that are not easily exportable. This would include R&D grants, production grants or low-cost manufacturing loans, etc. that the finance industry is not providing unless you want to pay loan-shark interest rates. Heck even that bastion of Creationism Conservatism we know as Texas has a "green jobs guidebook" for that "fad" sector. http://www.austincc.edu/ce/renewable/guidebook.pdf But instead SNO2TAM only offers token comments based on little.

- singlspeed

August 25, 2011 at 11:39am

Messieurs Bernstein and Obama. The real unemployment is not 9.1%, it's at least 13%. Add the underemployed, and you are looking at 18%. If you don't allow people the freedom to transact LOCALLY, in the direction they see as worth trying, no number of trillions of dollars will make those small transactions happen. Tell them you'll free their abilily to try as in to take risks by cutting taxes and regulations for at least 10 years, so they can recover from bad transactions. Better yet, free the people permanently.

- SayNo2TAM

August 25, 2011 at 4:11pm

Where do these libertarian nuts come from? This guy is making me yearn for seattleeng and ds111. At least those two can write coherently even if their understanding of economics is rather ideologically freighted and confused with their politics.

- roidubouloi

August 25, 2011 at 5:45pm

@roidubouloi In the article in question written by an economist, there isn't a word from the academic subject called "ECONOMICS". Check your own posts. Unlike you and the author, I did mention equilibriums, floors and ceilings. I can't assess your understanding of the subject for lack of the appropriate terminology in your remarks. I doubt you are in a position to talk about economics.

- SayNo2TAM

August 25, 2011 at 6:13pm

"If you don't allow people the freedom to transact LOCALLY, in the direction they see as worth trying, no number of trillions of dollars will make those small transactions happen. Tell them you'll free their abilily to try as in to take risks by cutting taxes and regulations for at least 10 years, so they can recover from bad transactions. Better yet, free the people permanently." Seriously? This reads like the bad character monologues that pass for philosophy from Ayn Rand. Since Obama took office, my wrists have been shackled by the irons of regulation that keep me from purchasing services from the community in which I live. This poor, huddled mass has lost his freedom because the marginal tax rate on the top 2% is too high and the EPA enforces clean air standards against corporate polluters. The iron heel of the Obamagarchy is crushing my will to live, produce and be a job creator. If only he let the free markets run like free-range chickens then my underemployed cohorts could rise up and start that iphone widget company they've dreamed of all these years.

- singlspeed

August 25, 2011 at 7:16pm

Oh, I love this part, SayNo, where we get to compare CVs. Yours consists of reading the Cliff's notes version of Atlas Shrugged, or perhaps watching the cartoon? Here's what I've been doing: I began my career as a commercial banking lawyer on Wall Street, representing some of the world's largest banks at one of the world's premier law firms. Worked on a couple of billion of financings in the late 70s and early 80s and was an expert on the Uniform Commercial Code and, of all things, Iranian assets control regulations. Go figger. Then went to business school, both NYU and Columbia, and joined a leverage buyout firm, ultimately becoming a principal. Spent 10 years buying and selling businesses, serving as the de facto CFO of a number, and even as the interim CEO of one. Handled a couple of difficult work-outs. Then I started my own securities trading firm. Still doing that. More recently, I have been working on a doctorate in economics, 2/3 of the way through now, and doing quite well thank you. Now, persuade me that you have reason to know something, anything, one little thing about the actual discipline of economics, not the cartoonish tripe you pick up in right-wing screeds.

- roidubouloi

August 25, 2011 at 8:34pm

@roidubouloi Did I ask for you CV? Or is it the only thing you can throw into the discussion of economics? In case you need clarification on what the field described in your post is that is FINANCE, separated by Bill Sharpe from the subject of economics in the 1960's. And you have practiced law on Wall Street? Let me pretend I believe all that. In that case you haven't seen even Cliff's Notes on econ, cuz clearly you can't figure out what I'm talking about. Now, I'm a former Mechanical Engineer with senior positions experience with an International MBA and going for a Doctoral in Business Admonistration. I also have an engineering consutaltuncy, I do occasional work for my former employers in the Semiconductor Industry. I have also worked in special machines field and as a freelance translator and interpreter. Unlike some "commercial bankers", I've functioned in the real economy and have a pretty good idea how businesses finance their projects, how products and services are priced, how they succeed and fail. I've spoken with them on more than one occasion, so, I wish you were one of them, cuz youdon't seem to understand what cost of capital is. I have also lived through a number of marketing fads, which, it seems, have not died off completely, since Mr. Bernstein still tries to put something like those to work for the President. SO, Mr. BIG CV soon-to-be econ doc, is that the aggregate demand thing... No, wait, let's see. First time I ever spoke to a commercial banker he told me to remember one super important thing - that's the difference between financial institutions and all other businesses. Later I herad the same from other bankers. Care to enlighten me on what that difference is? You should know. I'm sure you do.

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 12:19am

@singlspeed Care to tell me why in the world Obama needs to know about every one of my $600 purchases and why another 1099 has to be filled out? Do you know how much more of the valuable business time is spent on compliance with that brilliant idea of his? Just one example.

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 12:22am

You are just babbling again, SayNo. Even if I believed you, why should any of this persuade anyone that you know the first thing about economics? Because you are studying Business Administration? So what? You actually believe that taxes and/or regulations are the reason we have inadequate demand? Then you are an ignoramus. Well, no, you are an ignoramus and one of these libertarian supply-side wackos who doesn't actually know the first thing about how the economy functions. Why do businesses hire people and invest in productive capacity? Because of the cost of capital, or because they know how to produce and market products? No, silly boy. That is merely the means. The reason is that they perceive demand for the product at the price at which they can produce it. And if they are wrong, they go bust. No demand, no employment, no investment, no nothing. If they face effective demand, they will produce and they will live with taxes and regulations. If they do not face effective demand, you can cut their taxes to zero and eliminate all regulations. No output. No one can figure out what you are talking about, SayNo, because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are babbling. Are you studying at some school they advertise on matchbook covers? Did they teach you economics in engineering school, or language school, or special machine school?

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 2:44am

Roi, Even your nick pulls you into finance (return on investment), unless you fancy yourself a king, which would explain your pompous attitude. Voila, Votre Majesté : What I'm talking about is what any social science is all about - human behavior. So, Roi-the-demand-expert, the demand IS ALWAYS THERE, because people need to live, and therefore to TRANSACT. It is the means of realizing that demand that are constantly destroyed by taxation an regulation. It's a life long cultural phenomenon, demand that is. It's an attribute of an enterprising culture, which was out there before you, and I and Barak Obama were born. It cannot be stimulated, it can only be ruined. And now you are attacking my engineering school? Why did you stop talking about your great Wall Street experience? Is it because we've established you can't tell the difference between finance and economics? I'm till waiting on that difference between the financial institutions and other type of businesses, which any "commercial banker" would know.

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 3:28pm

Geez, SayNo, this is precisely what makes you part of the wacko supply-side set. NO, DEMAND IS NOT ALWAYS THERE. Of course, demand for subsistence is always there, people will always buy food if they can, but there are times when people choose not to spend money they have. Then aggregate demand falls and we have a recession. Since this results in unemployment, there is positive feedback. The unemployed then spend less and demand falls further. Yes, it does find a new, lower quasi-stable equilibrium and, yes, eventually the economy will work itself back to full-employment -- in the long run that is. But, as Keynes correctly pointed out, in the long run we are all dead. Of course demand can be stimulated, although that is a poor choice of words in my opinion. In the first instance, government, as an autonomous actor, can spend more and replace missing private demand with public demand. This in turn raises employment and produces the reverse of the downward spiral. The increase in employment generates additional private demand. Whatever you call it, it is a very real phenomenon. What is wrong with you crackpots is that you are utterly oblivious to the real world. You will insist that demand IS ALWAYS THERE despite the fact that there are times, right now for example, when it is not. You don't care. You have a theory and, like every nutty religious zealot that ever lived, you will believe it regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. The difference between economics and finance? Why don't you ask me about the difference between physics and baseball? The question would make just about as much sense. Baseball depends, as does the world, on the laws of physics. But is it meaningful to ask, what is the difference? It is an idiotic question. Economics is the study and theory of the behavior of people and their interaction when engaged in the business of producing and consuming goods and services. Finance is a particular economic activity that provides funding for other economic activities and, when functioning properly, matches and deploys idle fund balances to productive purposes. Happy now?

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 3:44pm

Ah, une dernière chose, Mon Roi, No one advertizes anything on the match boxes these days. You seem to be hopelessly behind the times.

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 3:45pm

No, roi, People always have stomachs , which need food, and after that is satisfied, the have ambitions to realize, they have aspirations for this life, and one of those is TO EAT AGAIN. The demand is out there right now for everything, it's just not worth the effort at the moment because of the fear that the result of the effort will be either negative or will be confiscated by the government. No one wants to give the fruits of their labor to the government, even "keynsians" say the businesses are waiting and are not investing right now. That "waiting" is precisely the demand that's out there, which is suppressed by the hateful rhetoric coming from people in power and the action that follow, especially health care demands on those employing 100-200 people, which is the typical size of a custom equipment maker these days. Dream what you wish, I know what my customers and people around me are saying. Aggregate demand is a lagging indicator, it's a directional phenomenon, which must be aggregated in the direction of least resistance, which cannot possible be seen from the WHite House, it changes on the hourly basis. BUt what CAN be seen from anywhere in Washington is the massive power the the giving hand with a money bag will have if you shut down business activity with regulation, but the stomachs will keep producing the stomach juice.

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 4:01pm

No Roi-the-specialist, I was asking you a question from the discipline of Finance, which, in turn, stems from Accounting, and, obviously, you didn't have a clue. I too can find web definitions for everything, as you did in that previous post of yours, and you completely missed the point, so... Before I tell you what it is, you have to admit you just made it all up, all that Wall Street commercial banker tale. If you really are doing a PhD in economics, which I doubt, I feel sorry for the youngsters you teach, you don’t know the basics taught to any BA is business. Learn from someone who is well educated and also has real life experience. Here's the difference between financial institutions and other types of businesses. IT'S THE NATURE OF THE ASSETS. To tell you more I'll have to educate you on the workings of the T-account and the basics of double-entry accounting. So, why don't you read (you probably fancy yourself an intellectual, well, I'm not going to question that) the biography of a Franciscan friar named Luca Bartolomeo de Pacioli , who invented the modern accounting, then I'll tell you more.

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 4:15pm

Hey, SayNo, this is you: "Is it because we've established you can't tell the difference between finance and economics?" Did I miss the point, or is that you have no idea what you are talking about? And, no, I didn't have to look anything up. Having spent my adult lifetime in finance and the past seven years studying economics, I actually do know the difference, right off the top of my head. Saying that the difference between financial institutions and other types of businesses is THE NATURE OF THEIR ASSETS would be quite analogous to saying that the difference between a baseball team and a car company is in the nature of their assets. That is to say, ridiculous. Did you think this up on your own? Now you are confusing accounting and finance. That's kind of like confusing clocks and time. Worse for you, finance in various forms existed long before the invention of double-entry bookkeeping, even in ancient cultures and in cultures that did not have this system of accounting. Yet you tell us that finance "stems from accounting." Finance is a form of economic activity. Accounting is a system of measurement. The activity does not stem from the measurement any more than time stems from clocks. And you think you are going to educate me? You are completely clueless.

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 7:49pm

King/Roi, Out of goodness of my heart. Finance=future accounting. Car companies and baseball teams' T-accounts's (of which you've yet to find out) assets do not have the types of assets a bank would have ot it's t-account. Just figure out what a bank's assets would be, you'll see the silliness of your analogy. You are digging yourself a hole, foolishly pursuing a subject you have never dealt with before. "The activity does not stem from the measurement any more than time stems from clocks." Boy oh boy. Taking measurement is an ACTIVITY. Accounting=record and report measurment-taking activity, unit of measurement - dollars (in the IS) Finance=forecast and report measurement-taking activity, same unit of measurement. It produces payment schedules. As for the time and clocks. I'd talk to you about Objectivism and Positivism,as in one informs the other, but you are not ready for that yet. I'm the best professor of business you've ever had. Therefore, I'm not inclined to work for free anymore. My rate is @120/hr.

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 10:38pm

@roi "Finance is a form of economic activity." I just realized that all that algebraic exercise of raising to the power and taking logarithms is not in the picture of finance that's in your mind. Roi, FINANCE is a service of creating payment schedules for the future plans OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. Financial services certainly is a form of economic activity, just like any other service provided for a fee. And, here's a hint. You don't have to be on the Wall Street (I'm sure it's your favourite fantasy) to provide financial services to your customer. Do you know there are at least two cities in the US, through which more money is moved on any given day than through Wall Street?

- SayNo2TAM

August 26, 2011 at 10:54pm

You are a moron, SayNo. Finance is not "future accounting." It is not any form of accounting. It is a type of service the principal output of which is financial capital for the purpose of investment. "Payment schedules" are not the product of finance. Yes, measurement is an activity, but the thing or activity being measured does not "stem" from the measurement. No more does finance "stem" from accounting as you claim absurdly. Do you think that because you know (perhaps) what debits and credits are that you understand accounting? Obviously not. You have not the foggiest idea. And do you also think that the fact that a bank's assets are someone elses liabilities (you did know that, didn't you?) is a deep revelation, some profound insight on your part into business, economics, or finance? About as insightful as noticing that steelworks employ furnaces. You cannot understand the business of banking, or any business for that matter, by knowing what its assets are. Car companies, baseball teams, banks, movie theaters, trucking companies -- none has the same types of assets as the other. It is not their assets that distinguish them; it is the services they render that distinguishes them. Their assets are merely part of the particular technology by which they render that service, and the assets will change as the technology changes. Indeed, a great deal of banking these days is done not by holding financial assets (someone elses liabilities), but by originating and trading them. You do not use the same technology, or assets, to exhibit movies as you do to transport cement or to provide financial capital. So what? Objectivism? You cannot be serious. You really are one of those flat-earth Randian nuts watching Atlas Shrugged cartoons. The last time I charged for my services, my rate was $600 an hour. That was in 1982. You couldn't pay me enough to try and educate you. I don't teach kindergarten.

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 11:23pm

Oh geez, someone taught you the concept of a discount rate and now you think you know something. If someone taught you how to grip a tennis racket, you would imagine you are ready for the US Open. You are not even a knowledgeable amateur, SayNo. You are a child with cartoon-like ideas about the things you cannot actually discuss intelligibly but merely mention as though reading words in your alphabet soup. That's what you have upstairs, SayNo. A soup in which various ideas you have heard someone mention float into view and then vanish again.

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 11:35pm