Obama nominates yet another aide to deal with the economy
On Monday of this week, President Obama nominated Alan Krueger to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). As, presumably, the President will rely upon his advice, you may wish to learn a bit about Mr. Krueger.
Currently, he is a professor of economics at Princeton University. Before that, for the first two years of the Obama administration, he was assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy under the guidance of Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner. While in that capacity he helped design the program known as “cash for clunkers”. As an economist, I suspect that even he, if he gave it any thought, would call that program a disaster. The government paid people to buy a car in September that they otherwise would have bought in November. Meanwhile, it drove up the price of used cars, as well as used car parts, because all “clunkers” that were turned in, by law, had to be destroyed.
He has also done studies that, at least in his mind, demonstrate that increasing the minimum wage does not depress employment. Interesting…should that be the case, let’s peg the minimum wage at $50 per hour and see what happens to employment, or, should I say, unemployment.
But, here is the best endorsement.
Cecelia Rouse, a Princeton economist and former CEA member, said of Mr. Kreuger…'[h]e will be a voice for more investments.’
By now, you know that “investments” is Obamaspeak for spending more of your money on “stimulus” programs, like, for example, cash for clunkers that, in reality, do more harm than good.
You may be wondering who Mr. Kreuger is replacing. Austen Goolsbee currently holds the job. He is leaving to return to academia. And, Mr. Goolsbee replaced Christina Romer who also left to return to academia.
This appointment tells me that when the President addresses the nation in September with his economic plan going forward, it will be same old same old. Stimulus, Part __, cash for __, and more debt.
I’m wondering, though, what is worse…having the Romer’s, the Goolsbee’s and the Kreuger’s of the world teaching economics, or setting this country’s economic policy.
No good answer there.
Love your last thought SOS, it just could be that Romer, Goolsbee and Kreuger are good for nothing.
Like most academics, I would bet that Krueger hasn’t had any significant experience in the private sector, a.k.a. a real job, much less ever run a business.? There is no indication in any of his bio’s that he has ever had a real job, never been on the low end of the economic spectrum.? His “cash for clunkers” program proves that.
?
In other words, he has never left the womb of academia; never contributed to the economy on which he writes, never had to function under the overbearing regulatory atmosphere created by excessive government.
?
Just what we need.
On the other hand, let’s peg the minimum wage at $0.0/hr (OK, let’s say $1.0/hr) and see what happens.
Given the governmental hammock we have in place now, nobody would bother to apply to a buck an hour job.? It would fail on its own.? That is why you don’t need a minimum wage.? If people don’t think a job is worth the money, they won’t work there.? If they need the money, or some extra income, then they will.
?
It is just a hidden mechanism to boost union wages, which are tied to the minimum wage.
Let’s just see what the market is for minimum wage.
If Barry makes this guy a Czar won’t that make him smarter?
It is true that, “The more things change, the more they get worse.”?
The corollary is: Horizontal change in Washington produces negative growth in the U.S. economy.
Ok sure, the Prez should really hire the gurus at the WSJ for economic advice!
“Clinton?s tax hike would cause a recession and send stocks plunging”
“Interest rates will soar thanks to Obama?s deficits”
“And much, much more.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/journal-economics/
?