Technology Isn't The Problem

Russell Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University and research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, writes a strong critique in the Wall Street Journal of Obama's foolish attacks on technology.  He quotes Obama's comments blaming technological change as a structural issue and cause of job losses.

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.... You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

This argument, as Roberts successfully explains, it complete bunk.  Productivity increases are the backbone of a successfully growing economy.  Such increases free up resources to be used in new industries, thus raising the standard of living for everyone.  Roberts argues that,

Somehow, new jobs get created to replace the old ones. Despite losing millions of jobs to technology and to trade, even in a recession we have more total jobs than we did when the steel and auto and telephone and food industries had a lot more workers and a lot fewer machines.

Roberts' economic argument is sound and history bares out his logic.  Tellingly, despite years of technological progress, unemployment rates have fluctuated around a band of 2.5% to a little over 10%.  If Obama's assertion that technology causes job losses and hurts the economy is correct, we would arguably see much greater unemployment, particularly as our history progressed.  After all, millions have left the agricultural industry, for instance, over the US's relatively short history.

The attempt to link technology growth and jobs loss is not only poor economics but down-right bad for the future of our country.  We already see this problem rampant in the discussion over free trade.  By confusing the masses, these arguments only help special interests gain from the loss of the country.  Technology, like trade, helps everyone in the long-run.  While some may be hurt in the short-run transition, there are far better and more efficient ways to help them than by criticizing or tampering with technological growth.

Obama and other politicians (this happens all too frequently on both sides of the aisle) should think before they whip out the rhetoric - it only serves to distract, "miseducate", and ultimately drive our country down the wrong policy paths.

Huntsman Has Some Potential

Former Utah governor and ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman has formally announced his candidacy for president.  He joins a thick field in the GOP primaries, most directly competing with Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty for the moderate and establishment wing of the party.

However, Politico seems to think there is little room for Huntsman in the mix, although conceding that

The former governor’s aim is to appeal to independents and moderate Republican voters that the rest of the field has so far largely ignored. While Huntsman’s opening video calls him the “ultimate conservative,” he has taken moderate positions on the environment, immigration and supports same sex civil unions....

Depending on how Huntsman's campaign shakes out, these moderate positions may very well be the ticket the GOP needs to successfully court independent voters and give Obama a much needed one-way ticket back to Chicago.

Nevertheless, some on the right have already ripped into Huntsman for his role as Obama's ambassador to China, claiming that by working with the president he has become tarnished goods.  Rush Limbaugh cries that "I also know that Reagan never served in Jimmy Carter's regime or administration.  Jon Huntsman did serve in Obama's; he was ambassador to the ChiComs."

Fortunately this argument is completely backwards.  What better ammunition against the current administration than someone who served in it and left.  Not only does Huntsman have more (and highly relevant) foreign policy experience than Obama did when elected, but he has the endorsement of his (potential) opponent. Obama would be ill-at-ease to criticize the foreign policy of a man he appointed to lead the relationship with one of the world's most important nations.  Just imagine Huntsman's potential response to Obama's foreign policy criticisms during the first presidential debate!

"Yes, Mr. President, I believe it was you that expressed confidence in my ability to manage foreign affairs when you chose me as ambassador to China!"

Time to Fix the Economy: The Debt Limit and Spending

Yesterday's vote on raising the debt limit was, as expected, voted down by the vast majority of the House of Representatives.  While Democrats, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (who voted against the bill), are hurling accusations of political theatre, the rejection of the "clean debt limit vote" was appropriate.  The message sent is unequivocal:  America cannot continue to spend beyond its means.  Cuts are needed and any increased ability to spend must be countered by reduced expenditures.

In a sense the Democrats are right.  This vote was not really about the debt limit.  Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), said it clearly “It’s true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible....”  However, default is certainly not an issue, at least at this point.  Instead, the vote was much more about changing the prevailing economic discourse in this country, where for far too long it has been easy to spend beyond our means and push off the consequences.  It is necessary and laudable for Congress to stand its ground and show that there really is no such thing (anymore) as "easy money".

The debt limit may ultimately need to be raised (a default would be catastrophic), but not without meaningful reassessment of the government's fiscal condition.  We are, as a nation, spending far too much.  Former Republican governor of Utah and possible presidential candidate, John Huntsman eloquently articulated the need to reevaluate our economic position, in what can fairly be described as a campaign speech in today's Wall Street Journal.

Amongst other points, Huntsman argued that the debt level must be cut while difficult choices need to be made regarding Medicare, Social Security and other government expenditures including agricultural subsidies.  Even Sarah Palin has jumped in the fray, smartly calling for an end to all energy subsidies.

Boehner is taking this message directly to the president, in a meeting scheduled for today, where he and fellow GOP congressmen aim to push Obama to make deep spending cuts in order salvage the US's fiscal sanity.  Backed by a number of leading economists, Boehner argues that "“To help our economy grow and create jobs, any debt limit increase needs to be met with even larger spending cuts.”


The GOP and those 82 House Democrats that voted against raising the debt limit are right to stand firm.  America must realize that our situation is perilous and that it is time to adjust our system before it becomes too difficult.  Huntsman summed up the sentiment nicely "Some argue for half-measures, or for delaying the inevitable because the politics are too hard. But delay is a decision to let America decline. The longer we wait, the harder our choices become."

The Weekend Interview with Wolfowitz

This week's Weekend Interview in the Wall Street Journal is an interesting and recommended read.  The WSJ sits down with Paul Wolfowitz, often deemed one of the architects of the Iraq War and the neocon movement.  Wolfowitz discusses his thoughts on bin Laden, the Arab Spring, Iran, and Iraq.  While at times critical of Obama - who had opposed Wolfowitz from his pre-presidential days - Wolfowitz is quite even-handed and provides insightful analysis on the Middle East.  Most interesting is that he demurs on crediting the Iraq War for sparking the Arab Spring, arguing that "I think Iraq took so long and was so bloody and is still so uncertain that it would be hard to say that it has inspired people."

What's Next? The Questions Surrounding Bin Laden's Death

A much expanded version of the today's blog post, "What's Next? Bin Laden's Death," has now been published at Futurechallenges.org, under the name "What's Next?  The Questions Surrounding bin Laden's Death."  Please click the preceding link for a more detailed discussion about some of the issues and questions that will arise over the next few months.  And stay tuned - a follow-up article will be written at Futurechallenges, tracing the results of some of these questions.

What's Next? Bin Laden's Death

Presidents Obama and Bush and their respective security and intelligence teams deserve a hearty round of applause for the death of Osama bin Laden last night. After nearly a decade of intelligence gathering and a successful special ops operation, the terrorist mastermind has finally been brought to justice.  President Obama particularly deserves credit for executing an extra-judicial killing (the mission was to kill not capture) and handling the event with poise and respectability.

As news reports indicate, bin Laden was killed in a mid-afternoon raid of a compound inside Abbottabad, Pakistan where al-Qaeda’s head was holed up. After a 40 minute battle, Navy SEAL forces were successful in shooting bin Laden in a firefight. Intelligence officials, including CIA director Leon Panetta, were able to watch the operation on a live feed from Virginia. While bin Laden’s death is undoubtedly cause for celebration it raises a couple of “what next” questions.

First, the location of bin Laden’s compound raises some significant questions about Pakistan’s complacency. The compound, described as a near fortress-like facility with four to six meter thick walls topped with barbed wire is located in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a suburb of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Abbottabad is said to be an important seat of the Pakistani government. The building was only a short distance from the Pakistan Military Academy, what BBC has called “the country's equivalent of West Point.”

Whether Pakistan knew of bin Laden’s whereabouts has yet to be determined, but obvious questions are buzzing around the media. It seems dubious that the world’s most wanted terrorist could be holed up in a fortress-like compound a mere 40 miles outside of the capital and across the street from a military college without someone in Pakistan’s government or in the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence services notoriously known for their ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban) knowing.

Further news will undoubtedly come forward in the next few days. If it is true that Pakistan had knowledge of bin Laden’s location and failed to assist the United States, it will be impossible for the Obama administration to avoid severe political reprisals against the country. No country or group can be excused for aiding and abetting the world’s most wanted terrorist. While the US will still need to work with Pakistan in the fight against radical Islam, punitive measures would be essential.

Second, while bin Laden’s death is certainly a major win for the United States and the war on terrorism, the West should be careful to avoid reading too deep into its operational significance. There are still many terrorists who wish to see harm brought to America. Bin Laden was, in many ways, a figurehead and his incapacitation does not negate the broader threat. Today we can celebrate, but we must not let down our guard. Instead we must continue to fight those who wish to destroy our way of life. This is especially true in the near future, as security forces have been put on high alert for possible reprisal attacks. For many in the Islamic world, bin Laden was a hero and his death a major loss. The war on terrorism will not be won solely by killing major leaders, but by defeating the very ideology that underpins a hatred of the West.