If the goal is job growth, we need to admit one fact: Political entrepreneurs create fewer jobs than do market entrepreneurs. We need new mass markets, really big markets of the sort Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie created. Great employment markets are discoverable only by people who create opportunities or see them in the cracks of what already exists--a Federal Express or Wal-Mart. Either you believe that the philosopher kings of the Obama administration can figure out this sort of thing, or you don't. I don't.Agreed.
FDIC chief Sheila Bair whacked bank bonuses Tuesday. People on the East Coast spend too much time around the finance and insurance industries. If the price of rediscovering the American job machine is some people across the land getting really rich, it's a small price.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
QOTD
Daniel Henninger in the March 3rd Wall Street Journal:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Note that the same price gets paid either way. No jobs, governing folks get rich. Many jobs, those providing desired services get rich.
> Note that the same price gets paid either way. No jobs, governing folks get rich. Many jobs, those providing desired services get rich.
Which one of those is the best for the greatest number? The one where the governing folks alone are the ones better off, or the one where lots of people have good lives (goes hand-in-hand with "the many jobs") AND are getting desired services as well, while a handful, who have worked to provide something for them, get additional rewards?
Doesn't seem like a quandary as to which one is a better result for the greatest number.
Post a Comment