Rich Lowry explains why it is a fantasy to think that the government can "create" jobs by investing in green technologies, something that Barack Obama and many Democrats seem to see as the answer to concerns about jobs that have been lost in our economy.
Currently, 1.8 million jobs in the economy relate to oil and gas (half of them at gas stations). Why layer more than double - if the Obama goal can be taken seriously - that number of "green" jobs on top of already existing energy jobs? Even if all the traditional energy jobs disappear, we will have succeeded only in employing more people in energy than otherwise necessary.
The "green" jobs enthusiasts are making a classic error illustrated by the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat. When a railroad was under construction from France to Spain, someone in Bordeaux suggested that there be a break in the tracks to boost the town's economy with all the extra work for porters to cart luggage between trains, etc.
Bastiat pointed out that, if breaks in the tracks were such an economic benefit, every town should have one and France should build a "negative railroad" consisting entirely of interruptions.
Of course, the French economy benefited much more from a real railroad delivering the efficient and cheap transport of goods. The push for "green" jobs is about creating a "negative" energy sector - hampering the energy sector we already have to create one that requires more labor.
To make people buy biofuels or wind power, either these energy sources have to be subsidized (draining resources away from more productive uses) or traditional sources of energy have to be taxed or regulated, which is what Obama proposes with his cap-and-trade plan on carbon emissions. The latter policy will cost jobs in the traditional energy sector and leave consumers with less to save and spend elsewhere.
As Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out, advocates of "green" jobs always emphasize the gross rather than the net job figures - because a more complete picture shows they are ultimately subtracting, not adding.
As Lowry goes on to point out, we've tried this route before and it didn't work then and it won't work now. Jimmy Carter tried it. We've tried it more recently with mandates on ethanol. The result has not been more jobs, but higher costs elsewhere in the economy.
It's always a mistake to believe that government can "create" jobs. It only creates jobs by taking resources from the economy, and therefore destroying jobs out of sight. It should attempt to create a favorable business climate and leave the rest, including the color-coding, to the market.
5 comments:
"The "green" jobs enthusiasts are making a classic error illustrated by the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat."
Um, no. Not really. In fact, not at all. The "green jobs" advocates propose investing to speed up the inevitable changeover to sustainable energy sources.
The Bastiat example was introducing an unnecessary obstruction to a new technology. So the people "making a classic error illustrated by the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat" would actually be individuals like Lowry and Betsy, who argue against green jobs. Just fancy that!
The tyranny of the visual abounds in a media culture: you can literally see the new jobs that were created, but you must logically deduce the ones they displace, leading to a surfeit of poser solutions.
This is all covered nicely, for those interested, in Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson."
Bill,
Yeah? And in what way were green technologies ever "new"? If green technologies were all that great would the Kennedy family have sought to ban them from their own neigborhood? :P
Betsy,
You're assuming that the reason for "job creation" is for the stated purpose. Not neccesarily. It's Chicago Rules here. Don't think Economy but rather think Patronage. The more deadend government jobs Mr. Obama can create, the greater the number of voters he can have economically dependent on him. The patronage hounds who supported him in the election understood this. That's why their votes were so easily purchased and that's why they were the type of synchophants who would cheer him when Mr. Obama did nothing more than blow his nose in public. Now he is paying them off by giving them a refuge from the private sector.
Let us sit back and enjoy the Dance of Fools that the next 4 years will be. ^_~
Towering - you seem to want to dispute something. Can you be a bit clearer about what you are challenging, and stick to facts.
Bill,
I'm sorry that the words I used were too big for you to understand, but in general I write for an adult audience rather than for the Left. :P
However, it will doubtless interest you to know that the fact that the Kennedy family did indeed seek to ban windfarms from their neighborhood is very much a matter of public record. ^_^
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/004328.php
One should not be surprised at the hypocrisy of the Kennedy family in this regard as it is hardly uncommon among those who profess to be "Green". After all, we all know about the way Al Gore wantonly wasted electricity at his own home, right? ^_^
On any event, the fact that Chicago Democrats such as Mr. Obama are notorious for their dishonesty, corruption and wilful mismanagement of government funds is also a matter of public record. Do you need confirmation on that as well, or may I presume that you have followed current events well enough that you do not need to brought up to date on this one? ^_~
Post a Comment