► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Michael Barone’

Michael Barone: The failure of the Michigan Economic Model

by Phantom Ace ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Economy, Misery Index, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, Special Report, unemployment at August 16th, 2011 - 1:05 pm

Since the new deal, the economic model of Big Companies, Unions and a regulated economy dominated the Midwest. The belief was that big companies can absorb the high costs of labor and regulations. As we have seen the last 11 years, that model has collapsed not only in the Midwest, but in the northeast and California. The higher costs pushed employers to relocate to the South or even out of the US.  The result has been an economic catastrophe with Detroit as the example of the failure of this economic model.

President Obama has kicked off a three-day bus tour of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois, where the corn is high and at least some factories are spewing smoke. He’s holding town-hall meetings on the economy, putting the unemployed back to work and “growing wages for everyone.” He won these Midwestern states handily in 2008, but he’s not taking anything for granted these days. The Midwest is the region with the largest number of target states. The president’s latest Gallup job approval there is 39%, the same as the nation as a whole.

To understand the political economy of the Midwest, it helps to put it in historic perspective. Originally the Midwest’s economy was built on its farms, then later on its factories. The long farm-to-factory migration lasted from roughly 1890 to 1970. At the end of that period, when I was working on the first edition of “The Almanac of American Politics,” it seemed there were two models for the U.S. future. One was the Michigan model, which prevailed in the industrial Midwest and the factory towns of the Great Plains. The other was the Texas model, which prevailed in most of the South and Southwest.

The Michigan model was based on the Progressive/New Deal assumption that, after the transition from farm to factory, the best way to secure growth was through big companies and big labor unions.

[….]

Liberals assumed the Michigan model was the wave of the future, and that in time—once someone built big factories and unions organized them—backward states like Texas would catch up

[….]

History hasn’t worked out that way. In 1970, Michigan had nine million people. In 2010, it had 10 million. In 1970, Texas had 11 million people. In 2010, it had 25 million. In 1970, Detroit was the nation’s fifth-largest metro area. Today, metro Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex are both pressing the San Francisco Bay area for the No. 4 spot, and Detroit is far behind.

Adversarial unionism is one reason the Midwest slumped. It turns out that the 1970 assembly line, with union shop stewards always poised to shut it down, was not the highest stage of human economic development. When you make labor more expensive, you create incentives to invent new machines and create new jobs elsewhere. Foreign auto manufacturers built plants in a South recently freed from state-imposed racial segregation. With no adversarial unions, management and labor could collaborate and achieve quality levels the Big Three took decades to match.

The Michigan model is a failure. We need the Texas model of a friendly business environment, low regulations and lower tax rates across the nation. If not, America will turn into a national version of Detroit

Youth vote swinging to the GOP

by Phantom Ace ( 122 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2009, Elections 2010, Elections 2012, Progressives, Republican Party at July 28th, 2011 - 8:30 am

In 2008, young voters voted overwhelming for Barack Hussein Obama. There was talk of a permanent Progressive majority and that the GOP was called the Grey Old Party. Well times have changed!

For the first time since the Reagan era, the GOP now leads among young voters. What has caused this change? For starters it’s Obama’s terrible economic policies. His State Capitalist model has failed, as many of us knew it would. Another factor is the GOP’s new found emphasis on economic and fiscal matters. Young voters want a better economic future and a chance to make money. They see that there’s a chance they will never have the lifestyle of their parents. This has made them sour on Progressive economics.

Millennials voted 66 to 32 percent for Barack Obama in 2008 and identified as Democrats rather than Republicans by a 60 to 32 percent margin.

But white Millennials have been moving away from the Democrats. The Democratic edge in party identification among white Millennials dropped from 7 points in 2008 to 3 points in 2009 to a 1-point Republican edge in 2010 and an 11-point Republican lead in 2011.
[…]

It’s not hard to come up with plausible reasons for these changes. Obama campaigned as the champion of “hope and change” in 2008 and assured crowds of young people that “We are the change we are seeking.”

But the change they have seen is anything but hopeful. Youth unemployment rates have been at historic highs. Young people have seen their college degrees produce little in the way of job offers.
[….]

In the wake of the 2008 election, I argued that there was a tension between the way Millennials lived their lives — creating their own iPod playlists, designing their own Facebook pages — and the one-size-fits-all, industrial-era welfare-state policies of the Obama Democrats.

Instead of allowing Millennials space in which they can choose their own futures, the Obama Democrats’ policies have produced a low-growth economy in which their alternatives are limited and they are forced to make do with what they can scrounge.

Read the Rest: Under Obama, Millennials move into the GOP column

Ronald Reagan won over young voters in the 80’s with an optimistic message of economic growth and a bright future. The post-Reagan GOP forgot this and spent their time talking about how bad American society had become, a bleak future and giving moral lectures. Now that the GOP has found it’s economic focus, it’s attracting young people back. This was a concept Reagan grasped back in the 1980’s.

Whether its the 1980’s or the 2010’s, young voters want an optimistic vision of the future. They want to hear about a better tomorrow and opportunities to advance in life. In a turn of events it’s the Democrats who are now negative about America, like the GOP was in the 90’s and 2000’s. Obama’s demagoguery is turning off many younger voters who can’t stand negativity. He comes across as a crank who’s miserable.

Hopefully Republicans can cement this hold by continuing to address economic concerns and pursue an agenda of economic opportunity.



Tonight at 8pm eastern time, Urban Infidel will have Robert Spencer as her guest on The Urban Infidel Show! Come join us!



Immigration from Mexico and Latin America falls

by Phantom Ace ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Headlines, immigration, Mexico at July 10th, 2011 - 2:59 pm

Due to a combination of a declining American economy, declining Latin American birthrates and Improving Latin economies, Immigration from those nations have fallen sharply. In the case of Mexico, it has crawled to zero. This changes the whole equation in the illegal immigration debate. If the legal numbers are down, that means those who are coming here illegally now are not doing it to seek jobs. They are coming here for drug distribution. If there are available visas slots from Mexico, that means those seeking work are not coming.

Immigration from Mexico to the United States has slowed down toward zero: that’s the thrust of an excellent story by Damien Cave in the New York Times (complete with excellent interactive graphics). I plan to write a column on that subject, but I can’t resist pointing out that I have been predicting this trend for more than two years now.

Examples:

June 7, 2009 blogpost. “There’s a need on all sides to rethink immigration policy. Both advocates and opponents of comprehensive bills have based their arguments on the assumption that large-scale immigration from Latin America and parts of Asia will continue indefinitely. But what if that assumption is false? Yes, our current recession is presumably temporary. But there is at least one other reason to assume that immigration from Latin America may not resume at previous levels: birth rates in Mexico and other Latin countries fell sharply around 1990.” The decline in Mexican birth rates is mentioned in the New York Times story.

This takes away a weapon from the Amnesty crowd. I have in my personal observation a decline in legal immigration from Latin American nations. As mentioned declining birthrates lowers the immigration poll. The improved economies in Latin America give people an incentive to stay home. Hence the call for amnesty is nonsense at this point. It’s not workers that will be legalized, they can apply for visas now due to the declining numbers. It will be cartel lackeys and drug runners.

On a flip side, the United States has a set quota of visas for Immigrants to enter per year. If Latin and Asian immigration have declined, who do you think are filling up the slots?

You know the answer.

 

The aloof Barack Hussein Obama

by Phantom Ace ( 172 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Progressives at June 27th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Barack Hussein Obama has been compared to many politicians. He has been compared to Jimmy Carter, Papa Bush, Hugo Chavez, Idi Amin, Mao Zedong and Benito Mussolini,  but Michael Barone has a different take. He compares Obama to Peter Seller’s character Chauncey Gardiner in the 1979 movie Being There. Like that character, Obama is aloof and acts like he is above it all. He has an aloof and nonchalant style to governing.

Which past leader does Barack Obama most closely resemble? His admirers, not all of them liberals, used to compare him with Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

[…]

But there is another comparison I think more appropriate for a president who, according to one of his foreign-policy staffers, prefers to “lead from behind.” The man I have in mind is Chauncey Gardiner, the character played by Peter Sellers in the 1979 movie “Being There.”

As you may remember, Gardiner is a clueless gardener who is mistaken for a Washington eminence and becomes a presidential adviser. Asked if you can stimulate growth through temporary incentives, Gardiner says, “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well and all will be well in the garden.” “First comes the spring and summer,” he explains, “but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.” The president is awed as Gardiner sums up, “There will be growth in the spring.”

Kind of reminds you of Obama’s approach to the federal budget, doesn’t it?

It really does seem as if Obama doesn’t care about the job. Barack seems over his head sometimes and he just wanted to be President for the sake of it. He’s admitted that being a one term President is OK with him. Come November 2012, maybe we can give him his wish!

Rodan Note: It’s Iron Fist’s birthday. Let’s wish him a happy one!