HOW ABOUT AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP CZAR?
by Michael S. Malone
As we near the one year anniversary of our current economic recession, we also appear to be approaching a crucial juncture . . . and of the two likely paths ahead, neither is cause for optimism.
History, economic indicators and the natural business cycle all suggest that we are transitioning out of the Crash of late 2008 either into a “double dip” downturn or a slow “jobless” recovery. In other words, our near-term prospects appear to be either catastrophic or merely dreary — deflation-driven depression or inflation-driven recession, 1932 or 1976. It’s no wonder that the American public, weary, fearful and looking at 10 percent unemployment and massive deficits into the indefinite future, is hunkered down, deferring purchases and growing increasingly cynical about Washington’s ability to manage the economy (or anything else).
It’s a depressing scenario. And yet, Americans are, by their nature, eternally optimistic. Given a way to improve their lot – while retaining their freedom – they will take it, and accept the risks and sacrifices to get there.
So, can we envision another path that will enable us to escape this pair of dire futures and restore us to prosperity? Well, certainly it would have to feature, first and foremost, massive job creation, of the magnitude we saw during the Reagan and Clinton years; and second, the conversion of those jobs, through increased productivity and investment, into equally massive wealth creation. We’re talking enough new, non-make-work jobs to push unemployment back down under 5 percent; and enough wealth to both pay off most of the debt we already have and preclude the jaw-dropping debt ($9 trillion at last count) we are about to assume.
But how do you create that much employment and wealth in a short time? Large corporations are unequalled at sustaining jobs, but, as the last two decades have shown, not at creating them. They also accumulate revenues and profits, but rarely create truly new wealth. Governments can create jobs, largely by fiat, and money simply by printing it – but the jobs are comparatively unproductive and the inflated money creates only the illusion of wealth and further distortions in the economy.
In the end, we only know of one way to create and sustain new jobs and new wealth, as well as the increased productivity and prosperity that accompany them: through entrepreneurial start-ups and small businesses.
But, incredibly, that knowledge has not turned to action. On the contrary, if you were to design a program to systematically undermine, impede, and ultimately crush new business creation in America, you couldn’t do much better than the one begun by the Bush Administration and taken into overdrive by the Obama Administration. Sarbanes-Oxley has destroyed initial public offerings of new start-ups to the benefit of Big Business, accomplished little and has cost a quarter-trillion dollars (couldn’t we use that money now!). It, combined with rules on options expensing, director liability, the recent re-classification of investment firms as banks, and Candidate Obama’s still pending promise to raise capital gains tax rates, has paralyzed the high tech venture capital industry. And that in turn has meant fewer and fewer future Googles and Facebooks being funded. As a result, Silicon Valley, the world’s heartland of high tech entrepreneurship, is rapidly becoming a place of big, maturing electronics companies – as are the rest of the nation’s tech enclaves. Its unemployment rate is the worst since the Valley was filled with orchards.
An honest Office on Entrepreneurship Head (I don’t like the term ‘czar’) would be quite annoying to the administration. Not only would the fact that the Government’s inability to ‘create jobs’ become abundantly clear, but they’d be inundated with requests to change their draconian regulations that stifle commerce.
The last thing a demagogue wants to hear is the truth.
If it weren’t so serious, all of the bleating about “saving or creating” jobs would be comical. However, the author is correct about the Obama administrations’ inability (or reluctance) to create jobs. It’s almost like they’ve never had any experience in a real job.
This is merely another reason for voter outrage: we, the great unwashed masses in flyover country, know how to create jobs. You do it by reducing taxes and removing restrictive regulations. If our elected officials don’t start moving soon to actually stimulate the economy, that will be further prooof (as if we needed any) that they’re only interested in wielding and maintaining their power over us, not in representing our interests.
I think what’s needed is a “Social Engineering Czar”. This should complete THE POLITBURO BEING ASSEMBLED BY OBAMA.
Hey! Hey! How about me! I have the requisite community organizing cred, and I have a track record of taking matters into my own hands.
“But, incredibly, that knowledge has not turned to action. ”
Wrong. that knowledge has been instrumental in all of Obama and his Commies policies to date. He is using the knowledge of what it takes to create jobs as a means of destroying them. This should be crystal clear by now.
What is truly “incredible” is that despite trying to nationalize health care to make people more dependent on government, despite a stimulus that is only stimulating government jobs wasting billions and which have to be paid for by taxes, despite trying to force cap and tax on us, despite the fact that Medicare is broke, Medicaid is broke and Social Security will go broke without massive changes, despite a blatant attempt to control the Internet by a kill switch and later by content filtering, anyone in their right mind would find the failure to create jobs incredible.
It is incredible to think that businesses are interested in creating jobs when faced with the possibility of more and more taxes.
It is incredible that people who have allegedly studied economics think that the government can solve anything.
But what is arguably the most incredible thing is that anyone can believe that the government wants to solve the problems. It does not. The more problems it creates, the more czars of destruction, unaccountable to the people, that it hires, the more dependent the people come to be on the government. That is the objective, and for Obama and his ilk, there is nothing incredible about it.
You cannot talk about the lack of job creation in isolation. It must be viewed in combination with all the anti-freedom measures that this administration is, has been and will continue to try and push into law by any means it can. Obama’s about to outline the details of the health care plan in the next few days. But wait. Why weren’t those details explained before it went to the Senate? Why didn’t anyone read the bill? Once people started reading it, the scrutiny resulted in many changes to a bill that does nothing to “stimulate” improved health care.
What is incredible is that the people have finally started waking up and realizing that if they don’t take an interest in what is allegedly being done for them, they will be incredibly unhappy at what the results will do to them.
Without opposition, cap and tax would have been pushed through by now. It is incredible that we have to make those we elected scared of losing the next election. It is not incredible that these arrogant imbeciles think they own us, and that we work for them. It is only incredible that we keep re-electing them.
Why do you think that despite studies showing massive problems, the Marxists push to legalize their agenda anyway?
Mr. Malone to his credit, does get into some of this, but to even imply that this administration doesn’t understand the economics of job creation is ridiculous. The problem is that it does understand – it understands that it’s objective is total power. The only thing that remains to be seen is just how far they will go to coerce the people into forced acceptance.
Marxists like BHO and Shrillary can`t think past the end of their idealogical noses. Their only concern is controlling the masses so they can have their dachas, private commuter lanes and caviar sandwiches. We the People are to be controlled so they have something to play with when they get bored…..
Good observation. You are correct in that we dont want the wild swings from bust to boom but rather, slow sustained growth like the late 80.s to late 90.s which would be the best scenario. However, I am not one to believe the early numbers. I think our country and the world economy will take a bit longer to recover from the 2006 to 2008 meltdown than many economists believe. But who knows?
I still find it incredible that a large chunk of your Democrats – certainly Southern ones – never suspected what might happen once this Chicago-cum-racist fiend of the American nation came to power as masthead of an outmoded, though EVIL party!
Perhaps the raging storm soon aflutter means that Americans are no longer the sheep their enemies thought they were?
Who’s bright idea was it to start this whole czar thing anyway?
“Does anyone inside the Beltway understand the cumulative, long-term implications of all this? Apparently not.”
The spirits of three late Harvard University elites dominate the Democratic Party and “moderate” Republicanism. They are John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and John Rawls. None of these so-called major thinkers possessed a clue on how best to create wealth. Their almost sole focus was on redistribution. Galbraith over forty years ago said that affluence was a done deal. He truly didn’t think the very concept of entrepreneurship deserved more than few moments of our time. Schlesinger advanced the myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s heavy-handed interference in the markets save American capitalism. Rawls argued that the value of fairness trumped everything else. He was essentially an economic illiterate.
11. Now and Then:
“Who’s bright idea was it to start this whole czar thing anyway?”
Nice try. In recent US history, the title of “czar” began with FDR. It is, however, true that Bush appointed ~46 over 8 years. Note that this includes appointments of different people to the same position. Obama has, in 9 short months, almost beat Bush’s 8 year score and will likely top out when he is done in 2012 well above that. Historically “czar” meant emperor, a title that is certainly creepy no matter who uses it as it gives images of the fallen Russian nobility. Though Bush’s use of the title was unfortunate, under the current ruler, it clearly connotates “guy who is to know and/or control you and yours.”
–The UnPatriot
Internet Tsar
Correction:
…it clearly connotes “guy who is to know and/or control everything about you and yours.”
–The UnPatriot
Internet Tsar
Be careful what you wish for. Under this Administration such a czar would almost certainly further constrain private business, institute more “diversity” policies, and make a bleak economic recovery even slower.
We should not be talking in favor of more czars, but rather the dismantling of this Administrations czar fiefdom.
Remember the last time America wished for a “Change” to a Liberal president to stop what they perceived as the bad policies of President Bush. I believe many if not most Americans are wishing for those good ole days.